Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am livid. I can't believe that we are going to waste money, yes WASTE money, on a wall and sending troops to the boarder when illegal immigration across the boarder has been at a record low. There are so many more priorities like the opioid crisis, getting Puerto Rico 100% back on the grid, dealing with gun violence, securing health care and saving Social Security. It's unconscionable that we are chasing around Trump's imagined boogeymen using taxpayer's dollars. Un*f'ing*believable.

Actually securing the border would help fight the opiod crisis. 95% of heroin consumed in the US comes from Mexico. Stronger border security would aid in cutting the supply chain. And the drug cartels are not imagined boogeyman. There is a real enemy south of us. Yes, many are families fleeing for a better life but you would be burying your head in the sand not to acknowledge the level of crime that crosses the border as well.

February 15th hearing of the House Judiciary Committee:
A panelist who testified at the hearing—Dr. Keith Humphreys of the Stanford University School of Medicine—said that the opioid epidemic is, "…at its most destructive [in] rural areas that don’t have sanctuary cities and indeed generally don’t have cities at all. Recent immigrants are rare, yet opioid addiction is rampant. That’s because the opioid epidemic was made in America, not in Mexico, China, or any other foreign country.”

See: Purdue Pharma

I'm not claiming that the problem wasn't American made. Of course big pharma and overzealous doctors are to blame for the opioid epidemic. You missed my point entirely though. My point is where do you think all the heroin and fentanyl is coming from? Do some research. 95% of it is comes from Mexico. And the cartels are brutal brutal people that you do not want in our country. Cut off the supply chain, or at least try to minimize it.

Ah, but just like a criminal will always find a gun, the druggie will find the drugs. If demand exists, the supply will come from somewhere. You need to attack from both sides.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hypocrisy of Mexico as it allows its people to flow illegally into our country, and its rancor with Trump for enforcing U.S. immigration law, is unreal. In Mexico, it is a FELONY to enter the country illegally, and anyone who helps an illegal alien is a criminal themselves. Furthermore, Mexico requires immigrants to be "useful to the country" and have the ability to support themselves and their families - and can imprison anyone deportee sneaking back in (even once) for 10 years.

https://dailysurge.com/2017/02/immigration-hypocrisy-mexico-cant-ways/

+1
Liberals are breathtakingly simple minded.

Agree. Their grasp on things are unbelievably simplistic. I remember arguing about Obamacare: Their mantra was "it's good for everyone to have insurance. Why wouldn't you want that?" and MY response was that it was impossible to 1) insure a greater number of people, 2) require insurance companies to provide more extensive coverage, and 3) have it all cheaper. Just as one example.

Liberals aren’t thinking, they are feeling.

BINGO! And any argument is always "how can you be so heartless"? Everything is framed in the terms of feelings. Never a concern for cost, consequences, or impossibility of policies.

Just as late my as you’re not claiming to be a “Christian.” In which case you should probably step back and ask yourself WWJD.

Why would I claim to be a Christian, and why would I care what Jesus would do? He has no bearing on me or my religion. You think everyone who is mindful of cost, consequences, and impossibility of liberal policies is a Christian? We're just not operating on "feelings," like liberals, and exercise some logic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says Mexico offered refugee status to those who qualified.

Is there something wrong with that?

First, it would be nice to have a citation for the statement that refugee status has been offered.
Secondly, if this is true, that is fine. Let them take the offer.

Those who don’t take the offer - we should not allow them into our country. If they choose not to take refugee status in Mexico, why not? If they continue to head to the US, why?
Those who are not offered refugee status - there is a reason they are not offered this status. These are very likely people we would not want to have in our country either.

It's in the article. That's the citation.

The article also says the caravan is basically dispersed, and was never equipped to reach the US border anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hypocrisy of Mexico as it allows its people to flow illegally into our country, and its rancor with Trump for enforcing U.S. immigration law, is unreal. In Mexico, it is a FELONY to enter the country illegally, and anyone who helps an illegal alien is a criminal themselves. Furthermore, Mexico requires immigrants to be "useful to the country" and have the ability to support themselves and their families - and can imprison anyone deportee sneaking back in (even once) for 10 years.

https://dailysurge.com/2017/02/immigration-hypocrisy-mexico-cant-ways/

+1
Liberals are breathtakingly simple minded.

Agree. Their grasp on things are unbelievably simplistic. I remember arguing about Obamacare: Their mantra was "it's good for everyone to have insurance. Why wouldn't you want that?" and MY response was that it was impossible to 1) insure a greater number of people, 2) require insurance companies to provide more extensive coverage, and 3) have it all cheaper. Just as one example.

Liberals aren’t thinking, they are feeling.

BINGO! And any argument is always "how can you be so heartless"? Everything is framed in the terms of feelings. Never a concern for cost, consequences, or impossibility of policies.

Just as late my as you’re not claiming to be a “Christian.” In which case you should probably step back and ask yourself WWJD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says Mexico offered refugee status to those who qualified.

Is there something wrong with that?

First, it would be nice to have a citation for the statement that refugee status has been offered.
Secondly, if this is true, that is fine. Let them take the offer.

Those who don’t take the offer - we should not allow them into our country. If they choose not to take refugee status in Mexico, why not? If they continue to head to the US, why?
Those who are not offered refugee status - there is a reason they are not offered this status. These are very likely people we would not want to have in our country either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

It bears repeating. A lot.

No, it does not. The caravan isn't headed for Ellis Island. They are planning on sneaking over the border like criminals.

They're planning on turning themselves in to ask for asylum. That's hardly "sneaking."

Have you actually talked to any of them? Or listened to reporters' interviews with any of them? Heartbreaking stories of murder and rape and threats and traumatized children.

But when you have no heart then it can't be broken. So good on you for your callousness toward fellow human beings.

I feel very sorry for these people. I truly do. But in all honesty what exactly do you propose we do? Would you propose letting anyone into the US who has heartbreaking stories of murder, rape and threats of traumatized children? Because that is happening all over the world.

Turning a blind eye to the suffering of people is not what Great America about. We certainly can be as bad as Saudi Arabia - but I hope that's not our ideal.

Ok so my question remains- what exactly do you propose we do? Would you propose letting anyone into the US who has heartbreaking stories of murder, rape and threats of traumatized children? Please answer that.

Yes I would. The people who come to this country to escape poverty from Europe and committed Native American genocide should not have a greater right to this land than someone else is trying to escape poverty/violence and begging asylum.

Do you want to go back in time that far? Fine. Lets go.

In GB, eight-year-old boys were publicly hanged for stealing turnips. Lets not forget the Labor Houses that had existed until late 1930s. Child labor - all E and W Europe. 10 hours per day for children as young as 7.

In Germany and most Eastern and Western Europe, for sexual intercourse with animals people were burned alive, homosexuals' heads were chopped off until late XXVII century.
Homosexuality was considered a perversion until very recent years by the way.

Atheism was equated with heresy and in different countries/different centuries was punished by death/moxibustion with the red-hot iron/anathema. Church was very strong and played the key role in ruling the society.

Slavery was legal - is that what you are advocating for?

If you want to bring back the laws of times of discovery and development of America you have to have the WHOLE package.

Anonymous wrote:The article says Mexico offered refugee status to those who qualified.

Is there something wrong with that?

The article says Mexico offered refugee status to those who qualified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you make Americans side with immigrant's plight? Force? What are the logistics of that on a practical level. That very statement is emotional (as an American, you should feel badly enough to side with immigrants, illegal immigrants included).

Other posters already destroyed your asylum law argument. They are traveling through a safe country who could grant them asylum, but won't. In fact, that country is busy sending THEIR poor HERE on OUR dime.

No more.

Where do you get that Mexico won't offer them asylum and instead is sending the caravan here? Fox?

Mexican authorities have encouraged the caravan to seek asylum there and told them it's easier to do so.

Are there reports of them applying for asylum in Mexico and getting rejected?

Yes, Mexico routinely deports them back to their home country.

http://time.com/5226064/immigrant-caravan-halted-mexico-donald-trump/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

It bears repeating. A lot.

No, it does not. The caravan isn't headed for Ellis Island. They are planning on sneaking over the border like criminals.

They're planning on turning themselves in to ask for asylum. That's hardly "sneaking."

Have you actually talked to any of them? Or listened to reporters' interviews with any of them? Heartbreaking stories of murder and rape and threats and traumatized children.

But when you have no heart then it can't be broken. So good on you for your callousness toward fellow human beings.

I feel very sorry for these people. I truly do. But in all honesty what exactly do you propose we do? Would you propose letting anyone into the US who has heartbreaking stories of murder, rape and threats of traumatized children? Because that is happening all over the world.

Turning a blind eye to the suffering of people is not what Great America about. We certainly can be as bad as Saudi Arabia - but I hope that's not our ideal.

Ok so my question remains- what exactly do you propose we do? Would you propose letting anyone into the US who has heartbreaking stories of murder, rape and threats of traumatized children? Please answer that.

Yes I would. The people who come to this country to escape poverty from Europe and committed Native American genocide should not have a greater right to this land than someone else is trying to escape poverty/violence and begging asylum.

Another liberal who can't separate emotion from legal reality.

America's history should make Americans side with immigrants's plight. This is not about emotion. It is about the foundation of this country. But, you are a selfish conservative who wants to whitewash the history and twist the law to fit your opinion.

We have very strict asylum law that would allow immigrant to settle in US, if an immigrant can prove he/she is eligible. These asylum seekers can and should be evaluated on that basis in stead of being threatened by military power to even try the legal route.

This is why I can never become a liberal. Though I'm frustrated with Republicans too at least they make more sense. Liberal arguments like pp's above literally have no rationale. A ton of heart but no reason. How can you possibly let everyone in who has dealt with hardships in their country? Literally the whole world would be coming here. PP, you seriously need to examine the sense of your views. As much as I wish the world were a perfect utopia and we could open our borders to anyone and everyone who would like to live here, in this day and age (not hundreds of years ago when the US was first settled as you're referencing), it is not possible. If you let these 1,200 migrants in now, another 1,200 will come, and another, etc. We can't do that. The world is not perfect, not ideal and we must have laws, otherwise the quality of life for everyone goes down. If you want to help, find ways to travel to those countries and help the people there. What can their governments, social policies, etc do to make living conditions for their own people better? We cannot save the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you make Americans side with immigrant's plight? Force? What are the logistics of that on a practical level. That very statement is emotional (as an American, you should feel badly enough to side with immigrants, illegal immigrants included).

Other posters already destroyed your asylum law argument. They are traveling through a safe country who could grant them asylum, but won't. In fact, that country is busy sending THEIR poor HERE on OUR dime.

No more.

Where do you get that Mexico won't offer them asylum and instead is sending the caravan here? Fox?

Mexican authorities have encouraged the caravan to seek asylum there and told them it's easier to do so.

Are there reports of them applying for asylum in Mexico and getting rejected?

Anonymous wrote:

America's history should make Americans side with immigrants's plight. This is not about emotion. It is about the foundation of this country. But, you are a selfish conservative who wants to whitewash the history and twist the law to fit your opinion.

We have very strict asylum law that would allow immigrant to settle in US, if an immigrant can prove he/she is eligible. These asylum seekers can and should be evaluated on that basis in stead of being threatened by military power to even try the legal route.

The highlighted word says it all. You think the law "should" say something, but the fact is that it does not. The U.S. immigration law has no provision for welcoming the poor huddled masses. It just doesn't. Poverty is not grounds for immigration. I get that you think it ought to be, but it isn't currently.

The U.S. does have asylum laws, and grounds for asylum specifically exclude economic hardship. In addition, countries are entirely justified in restricting access to potential asylees because asking for asylum is not a right, it's a privilege born out of opportunity. They can always apply for a refugee status in their own country. That's what the law says, untwisted.

The law also says you apply for asylum in the first safe country you traverse. It would be much easier for Central Americans to settle in Mexico, for instance, where they face no language barriers. But they don't want Mexico, and the feeling is fully mutual.

Anonymous wrote:How do you make Americans side with immigrant's plight? Force? What are the logistics of that on a practical level. That very statement is emotional (as an American, you should feel badly enough to side with immigrants, illegal immigrants included).

Other posters already destroyed your asylum law argument. They are traveling through a safe country who could grant them asylum, but won't. In fact, that country is busy sending THEIR poor HERE on OUR dime.

No more.

Where do you get that Mexico won't offer them asylum and instead is sending the caravan here? Fox?

Mexican authorities have encouraged the caravan to seek asylum there and told them it's easier to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

It bears repeating. A lot.

No, it does not. The caravan isn't headed for Ellis Island. They are planning on sneaking over the border like criminals.

They're planning on turning themselves in to ask for asylum. That's hardly "sneaking."

Have you actually talked to any of them? Or listened to reporters' interviews with any of them? Heartbreaking stories of murder and rape and threats and traumatized children.

But when you have no heart then it can't be broken. So good on you for your callousness toward fellow human beings.

I feel very sorry for these people. I truly do. But in all honesty what exactly do you propose we do? Would you propose letting anyone into the US who has heartbreaking stories of murder, rape and threats of traumatized children? Because that is happening all over the world.

Turning a blind eye to the suffering of people is not what Great America about. We certainly can be as bad as Saudi Arabia - but I hope that's not our ideal.

Ok so my question remains- what exactly do you propose we do? Would you propose letting anyone into the US who has heartbreaking stories of murder, rape and threats of traumatized children? Please answer that.

Yes I would. The people who come to this country to escape poverty from Europe and committed Native American genocide should not have a greater right to this land than someone else is trying to escape poverty/violence and begging asylum.

Another liberal who can't separate emotion from legal reality.

America's history should make Americans side with immigrants's plight. This is not about emotion. It is about the foundation of this country. But, you are a selfish conservative who wants to whitewash the history and twist the law to fit your opinion.

We have very strict asylum law that would allow immigrant to settle in US, if an immigrant can prove he/she is eligible. These asylum seekers can and should be evaluated on that basis in stead of being threatened by military power to even try the legal route.

How do you make Americans side with immigrant's plight? Force? What are the logistics of that on a practical level. That very statement is emotional (as an American, you should feel badly enough to side with immigrants, illegal immigrants included).

Other posters already destroyed your asylum law argument. They are traveling through a safe country who could grant them asylum, but won't. In fact, that country is busy sending THEIR poor HERE on OUR dime.

No more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

It bears repeating. A lot.

No, it does not. The caravan isn't headed for Ellis Island. They are planning on sneaking over the border like criminals.

They're planning on turning themselves in to ask for asylum. That's hardly "sneaking."

Have you actually talked to any of them? Or listened to reporters' interviews with any of them? Heartbreaking stories of murder and rape and threats and traumatized children.

But when you have no heart then it can't be broken. So good on you for your callousness toward fellow human beings.

I feel very sorry for these people. I truly do. But in all honesty what exactly do you propose we do? Would you propose letting anyone into the US who has heartbreaking stories of murder, rape and threats of traumatized children? Because that is happening all over the world.

Turning a blind eye to the suffering of people is not what Great America about. We certainly can be as bad as Saudi Arabia - but I hope that's not our ideal.

Ok so my question remains- what exactly do you propose we do? Would you propose letting anyone into the US who has heartbreaking stories of murder, rape and threats of traumatized children? Please answer that.

Yes I would. The people who come to this country to escape poverty from Europe and committed Native American genocide should not have a greater right to this land than someone else is trying to escape poverty/violence and begging asylum.

Another liberal who can't separate emotion from legal reality.

NP here: Generally agree as to her inability to separate her feelings from reality.

However, she sounds far more extreme than many liberals; even the typical DC bubble-dwelling type liberals.