QuebecOverCanada Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 4 hours ago, Hodad said: That's not accurate. Trump severely restricted legal immigration in his last term (while illegal immigration increased) and his plans if he is reelected seem to me more extreme. Isn't it extremist to not enforce border laws and allow the entrance of millions of illegal immigrants? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, QuebecOverCanada said: Isn't it extremist to not enforce border laws and allow the entrance of millions of illegal immigrants? It's not extremist to follow and enforce the laws as written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: You're the one who explained facts vs opinions. Live up to your principles, man. It's not my job to validate your world view... I don't need you to validate anything but you also don't determine what's true. In your mind you might but the real doesn't care about your mind. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, ironstone said: A reasonable person might think that there is a limit to how many people a country can absorb at any one time. Barrack Obama deported more people than Trump, but few people dare to mention that inconvenient fact. People have the right to apply and try to enter most countries legally. They shouldn't have the right to barge in. Actually, people mention that fact quite often. Just not on Fox. Deportations went down under Trump, and Trump repatriated a lower percentage and released a higher percentage of his border crossers into the US than Biden. Yet somehow Trump and Fox have managed to convince people that Biden's policies are somehow softer. It's almost like there's some sort of anti-reality filter in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 2 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said: Isn't it extremist to not enforce border laws and allow the entrance of millions of illegal immigrants? He's not "reasoning", he's just regurgitating leftist platitudes. Literally nothing he says has to make sense, it just has to convey the message that everything orange man does is bad. In this instance, Trump speaks about the problems at the border, so talking about problems at the border is bad. That's it. It's bad and no amount of reason or logic can mansplain that away in his eyes. Dem leaders will actually acknowledge that illegal immigration isn't all sunshine and rainbows when 30 or 40 hungry, homeless illegals are dropped off within their city limits - in fact they find it quite horrific - but for some reason they think that Texas is supposed to be fine with 12,000 of them per day. How long did NY put up with a few busloads? Chicago? Texas has been receiving 100x as many immigrants as NY or Chi every day since Biden was elected, but they thought it was fine until they experienced a tiny fraction of it. It's gong to be an interesting election in 2024. I'm especially interested to see who trump's running against. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 Its simply a matter of resources. If we allow too many in.. it spreads the resources thin. It would be best to limit immigration so as to ease the strain on the communities in TX, NM, and AZ. That being said.. I can see through certain folks. They want to restrict immigration on the southern border completely because they have a deep dislike/hatred of non-whites. So even if they followed protocol and applied for citizenship, they would still call them wetbacks. They have a fear that their once perfect but very white communities will go brown.. I saw this in my home state of Idaho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: Its simply a matter of resources. If we allow too many in.. it spreads the resources thin. It would be best to limit immigration so as to ease the strain on the communities in TX, NM, and AZ. That being said.. I can see through certain folks. They want to restrict immigration on the southern border completely because they have a deep dislike/hatred of non-whites. So even if they followed protocol and applied for citizenship, they would still call them wetbacks. They have a fear that their once perfect but very white communities will go brown.. I saw this in my home state of Idaho. Yeah that's terrible and all but not relevant. Do the right thing for the country and it's people and then deal with the 1diots after. 12 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: Its simply a matter of resources. If we allow too many in.. it spreads the resources thin. It would be best to limit immigration so as to ease the strain on the communities in TX, NM, and AZ. That being said.. I can see through certain folks. They want to restrict immigration on the southern border completely because they have a deep dislike/hatred of non-whites. So even if they followed protocol and applied for citizenship, they would still call them wetbacks. They have a fear that their once perfect but very white communities will go brown.. I saw this in my home state of Idaho. Also why 'wetbacks'? I've never understood that term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 47 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Yeah that's terrible and all but not relevant. Do the right thing for the country and it's people and then deal with the 1diots after. Also why 'wetbacks'? I've never understood that term. the term comes from the idea that the hispanic immigrants swims across the Rio Grande (Texas) or the Pacific Ocean at San Diego and so they are wet. Growing up, that term was ubiquitous. The rapid population growth starting in the mid 80's led to there not being enough landscape and construction workers... hence the hispanic immigrants. My grandparents had friends in Eastern Idaho (Burley and rupert) who were potato farmers. We would go out that way and help out in early august or so. The locals were quite the hypocrites. They deliberately sought out cheap but illegal labor. Secondly, when the parents would pass away.. the kids would sell the farm in hopes of cashing in and living comfortably in Boise, SLC, or Bozeman MT. As a result.. the population became more brown as those illegals hung around and had kids. The greasy spoon diner would get replaced by a Taqueria.. oh the horror. Well, if you cared so much about your town then do not sell the farm or move away. Edited January 23 by impartialobserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 16 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: the term comes from the idea that the hispanic immigrants swims across the Rio Grande (Texas) or the Pacific Ocean at San Diego and so they are wet. Interesting. Still seems oddly specific. why not wet fronts? Or wet hair? Or just wet ones.... actualy skip that one, copyright issues.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 4 hours ago, impartialobserver said: Its simply a matter of resources. If we allow too many in.. it spreads the resources thin. It would be best to limit immigration so as to ease the strain on the communities in TX, NM, and AZ. That being said.. I can see through certain folks. They want to restrict immigration on the southern border completely because they have a deep dislike/hatred of non-whites. So even if they followed protocol and applied for citizenship, they would still call them wetbacks. They have a fear that their once perfect but very white communities will go brown.. I saw this in my home state of Idaho. Historically, immigrants don't represent a drain on resources, but rather a boost in human resources. Obviously there are (evolving) levels of maximum ability to take advantage of human resources, and capacity constraints, but I think most economists agree we're not close to either limit. With oodles of space, appetite for industry and a falling birth rate, I suspect we'll be able to make good use of new arrivals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 3 hours ago, impartialobserver said: the term comes from the idea that the hispanic immigrants swims across the Rio Grande (Texas) or the Pacific Ocean at San Diego and so they are wet. Growing up, that term was ubiquitous. The rapid population growth starting in the mid 80's led to there not being enough landscape and construction workers... hence the hispanic immigrants. My grandparents had friends in Eastern Idaho (Burley and rupert) who were potato farmers. We would go out that way and help out in early august or so. The locals were quite the hypocrites. They deliberately sought out cheap but illegal labor. Secondly, when the parents would pass away.. the kids would sell the farm in hopes of cashing in and living comfortably in Boise, SLC, or Bozeman MT. As a result.. the population became more brown as those illegals hung around and had kids. The greasy spoon diner would get replaced by a Taqueria.. oh the horror. Well, if you cared so much about your town then do not sell the farm or move away. Garrison Keillor use to do a very funny bit about Minnesotans fearing the influx of "frostbacks" from Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 22 hours ago, ironstone said: A reasonable person might think that there is a limit to how many people a country can absorb at any one time. Barrack Obama deported more people than Trump, but few people dare to mention that inconvenient fact. People have the right to apply and try to enter most countries legally. They shouldn't have the right to barge in. It's not your country and that's why your OPINIONS mean nothing here. The fact is, applying for asylum here does not depend on entry through official government points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 22 hours ago, Hodad said: Yet somehow Trump and Fox have managed to convince people that Biden's policies are somehow softer. It's almost like there's some sort of anti-reality filter in place. Border Crossings 3 Times Higher Under Biden Than Trump (newsweek.com) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caswell Thomas Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 On 1/22/2024 at 6:53 AM, Yakuda said: I like how you refer to an invasion as migration. They arent birds migrating for the winter. You're disingenuous right from the start. No one should really take you seriously if in the first line of your post you're off the rails. In fact, they are migrating. . Multiple large, mostly agricultural companies of the U. S. A. Have been, for multiple decades, been importing workers from Mexico and other South American countries to do the field hands work, the oyster companies works, the fisheries dockhands, and the other simple field jobs like trench workers or orchard pickers that even dirt poor Americans who are desperate for work , refuse to do because they have been told it is beneath them. Big companies MUST have such laborers to get their work done that America depends in to keep its prices reasonable and profit margins high, so in effect, this is an annual Migration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 8 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said: In fact, they are migrating. . Multiple large, mostly agricultural companies of the U. S. A. Have been, for multiple decades, been importing workers from Mexico and other South American countries to do the field hands work, the oyster companies works, the fisheries dockhands, and the other simple field jobs like trench workers or orchard pickers that even dirt poor Americans who are desperate for work , refuse to do because they have been told it is beneath them. Big companies MUST have such laborers to get their work done that America depends in to keep its prices reasonable and profit margins high, so in effect, this is an annual Migration. This isn't a migration it's an invasion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 14 hours ago, robosmith said: It's not your country and that's why your OPINIONS mean nothing here. The fact is, applying for asylum here does not depend on entry through official government points. Maybe but: ALERT: Court Order on Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule On Aug. 3, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s order in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 18-cv-06810 (N.D. Cal.), vacating the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) rule. At this time and while the stay remains in place, USCIS will continue to apply the CLP rule. Under the rule, certain individuals who enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders are presumed to be ineligible for asylum, unless they can demonstrate an exception to the rule or rebut the presumption. Individuals are encouraged to use lawful, safe, and orderly pathways to come to the United States. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.