Question for everyone: Should the United States have open borders?

[Doc1]

No.

Next question. Should we intentionally target children with the intention of traumatizing them as our focus in order to enforce policies?

Actions have consequences, the folks to blame are the one who took the wrong actions. You got what you wanted, the families will now stay together.
In prison until they are vetted and cleared. try and be happy.

So that's a yes, Children should be targeted with the intention of traumatizing them. Should children be physically harmed as well? How about thrown in to gas chambers? Where do you draw the line? Do you have a line?

Stupid people take things out to an illogical extreme. You got what you wanted, you won. They will stay together, be happy. The "targeted" folks are the law breakers. I know that's a tough thing for a Prog to understand but the blame lies squarely on the parents. Do try and grow up so you can learn to debate without being stupid.

So where do you draw the line? I asked you a question. What is NOT acceptable to you?

It wasn't a question, it was a patently stupid thing to type. Weak minded people throw out that Nazi shit when they are cornered. You won, they will stay together you can be happy now. Or is that you think we should just let them all in because they want in?

Here is my position. The "parents" broke the law, they brought the consequences down upon themselves and their children. The blame rests with the "parents".

 

[OKTexas]

No.

Next question. Should we intentionally target children with the intention of traumatizing them as our focus in order to enforce policies?

We don't, stop the lies and propaganda.


.

 

[Richard-H]

It appears that the question is not stupid because everything that the Democrats oppose in GOP legislation point to the Democrats favor everyone coming in at any time.

Now historically we did have that... when on August 3,1882 the first "general immigration law" was passed.
Immigration Act of 1882 - Wikipedia
And the population of the USA at that time was 50,189,209 or 1/6 what it is today.

So our country was founded on the rule of law... not emotion. Not illogic. But founded on the preamble of the US Constitution what clearly states.."provide for the common defence".

So if we have no borders. No laws regarding who can come in what do we have but back to where we were
over 136 years when EVERYONE had a gun. A lot of the country had no law and anyone could come in.

So is that what the Democrats want? Our country to revert back to the way we were in the 1880s?

I'm all in favor then as there would be open season on protecting me and my property it sounds like.

Wow what a farce!

First, there are many other functions that borders provide beside keeping immigrants out.

Second, the Democrats not supporting current Republican proposals does not equate to the Democrats wanting open borders.

Third, the majority of immigrants are not breaking any laws. They are applying for asylum and other various immigrant status. That is not against the law at all. It's these law abiding people who are having their children taken away. That gives a whole lot more incentive for people to try to enter the country illegally.

Fourth, the vast majority of these people are law abiding, peaceful people who are only hoping for a better life. They are an awful lot like your ancestors (except they don't want to kill native Americans).

Fifth, you are a paranoid idiot if you think that these people are a threat to you and your property. Just becuase you are a violent theiving idiot doesn't mean that they are.

 

[Richard-H]

No.

Next question. Should we intentionally target children with the intention of traumatizing them as our focus in order to enforce policies?

Actions have consequences, the folks to blame are the one who took the wrong actions. You got what you wanted, the families will now stay together.
In prison until they are vetted and cleared. try and be happy.

So that's a yes, Children should be targeted with the intention of traumatizing them. Should children be physically harmed as well? How about thrown in to gas chambers? Where do you draw the line? Do you have a line?

Stupid people take things out to an illogical extreme. You got what you wanted, you won. They will stay together, be happy. The "targeted" folks are the law breakers. I know that's a tough thing for a Prog to understand but the blame lies squarely on the parents. Do try and grow up so you can learn to debate without being stupid.

So where do you draw the line? I asked you a question. What is NOT acceptable to you?

It wasn't a question, it was a patently stupid thing to type. Weak minded people throw out that Nazi shit when they are cornered. You won, they will stay together you can be happy now. Or is that you think we should just let them all in because they want in?

Here is my position. The "parents" broke the law, they brought the consequences down upon themselves and their children. The blame rests with the "parents".

No, their parents did not break the law. These are people who are applying for asylum and other legal immigrant status. They should all get a hearing under due process to determine if their application is accepted.

 

[Doc1]

It appears that the question is not stupid because everything that the Democrats oppose in GOP legislation point to the Democrats favor everyone coming in at any time.

Now historically we did have that... when on August 3,1882 the first "general immigration law" was passed.
Immigration Act of 1882 - Wikipedia
And the population of the USA at that time was 50,189,209 or 1/6 what it is today.

So our country was founded on the rule of law... not emotion. Not illogic. But founded on the preamble of the US Constitution what clearly states.."provide for the common defence".

So if we have no borders. No laws regarding who can come in what do we have but back to where we were
over 136 years when EVERYONE had a gun. A lot of the country had no law and anyone could come in.

So is that what the Democrats want? Our country to revert back to the way we were in the 1880s?

I'm all in favor then as there would be open season on protecting me and my property it sounds like.

Wow what a farce!

First, there are many other functions that borders provide beside keeping immigrants out.

Second, the Democrats not supporting current Republican proposals does not equate to the Democrats wanting open borders.

Third, the majority of immigrants are not breaking any laws. They are applying for asylum and other various immigrant status. That is not against the law at all. It's these law abiding people who are having their children taken away. That gives a whole lot more incentive for people to try to enter the country illegally.

Fourth, the vast majority of these people are law abiding, peaceful people who are only hoping for a better life. They are an awful lot like your ancestors (except they don't want to kill native Americans).

Fifth, you are a paranoid idiot if you think that these people are a threat to you and your property. Just becuase you are a violent theiving idiot doesn't mean that they are.

"Fourth, the vast majority of these people are law abiding, peaceful people who are only hoping for a better life. They are an awful lot like your ancestors (except they don't want to kill native Americans)."

This is not a qualifier for asylum. Learn about shit before you make stupid statements.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No, their parents did not break the law. These are people who are applying for asylum and other legal immigrant status. They should all get a hearing under due process to determine if their application is accepted.

Try to wrap your brains around this.........

1) Asylum seeker - approaches border point, and presents themselves to an agent and claim asylum.

2) Not an asylum seeker - get's busted in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere...and then wants to claim asylum.

Undocumented immigrant - it didn't work, Americans didn't buy the label.
Asylum seeker - the new label, somehow thinking Americans will buy it.

 

[OKTexas]

No.

Next question. Should we intentionally target children with the intention of traumatizing them as our focus in order to enforce policies?

Actions have consequences, the folks to blame are the one who took the wrong actions. You got what you wanted, the families will now stay together.
In prison until they are vetted and cleared. try and be happy.

So that's a yes, Children should be targeted with the intention of traumatizing them. Should children be physically harmed as well? How about thrown in to gas chambers? Where do you draw the line? Do you have a line?

Stupid people take things out to an illogical extreme. You got what you wanted, you won. They will stay together, be happy. The "targeted" folks are the law breakers. I know that's a tough thing for a Prog to understand but the blame lies squarely on the parents. Do try and grow up so you can learn to debate without being stupid.

So where do you draw the line? I asked you a question. What is NOT acceptable to you?

The line is called a border, violate it and expect to pay the consequences. What should be done is put the parents in front of an immigration judge within 48-72 hours. Convict them of illegal entry and send everyone back home with a conviction. If they want to purse asylum they can do it from home.


.

 

[jwoodie]

No, their parents did not break the law.

Entering the U.S. without permission is breaking the law.

 

[healthmyths]

There is going to be a reckoning.
My advice to the LIBs is to learn to speak Spanish and arm yourselves.
The S.A. cartels have already set up shop in hundreds of locations in America.
And MS13 are their storm troopers.
Within a few years MS13 will have over two million members.
Then we'll see how the LIBs enjoy going outside their homes.

Which is why we will all have to be armed like we were in the wild west in the 1880s...

 

[Richard-H]

It appears that the question is not stupid because everything that the Democrats oppose in GOP legislation point to the Democrats favor everyone coming in at any time.

Now historically we did have that... when on August 3,1882 the first "general immigration law" was passed.
Immigration Act of 1882 - Wikipedia
And the population of the USA at that time was 50,189,209 or 1/6 what it is today.

So our country was founded on the rule of law... not emotion. Not illogic. But founded on the preamble of the US Constitution what clearly states.."provide for the common defence".

So if we have no borders. No laws regarding who can come in what do we have but back to where we were
over 136 years when EVERYONE had a gun. A lot of the country had no law and anyone could come in.

So is that what the Democrats want? Our country to revert back to the way we were in the 1880s?

I'm all in favor then as there would be open season on protecting me and my property it sounds like.

Wow what a farce!

First, there are many other functions that borders provide beside keeping immigrants out.

Second, the Democrats not supporting current Republican proposals does not equate to the Democrats wanting open borders.

Third, the majority of immigrants are not breaking any laws. They are applying for asylum and other various immigrant status. That is not against the law at all. It's these law abiding people who are having their children taken away. That gives a whole lot more incentive for people to try to enter the country illegally.

Fourth, the vast majority of these people are law abiding, peaceful people who are only hoping for a better life. They are an awful lot like your ancestors (except they don't want to kill native Americans).

Fifth, you are a paranoid idiot if you think that these people are a threat to you and your property. Just becuase you are a violent theiving idiot doesn't mean that they are.

"Fourth, the vast majority of these people are law abiding, peaceful people who are only hoping for a better life. They are an awful lot like your ancestors (except they don't want to kill native Americans)."

This is not a qualifier for asylum. Learn about shit before you make stupid statements.

Whether they qualify for asylum will be determined by a hearing. Escaping from persecution does qualify for asylum and does fit "hoping for a better life."

Learn to think before you post.

 

[Intolerant]

No.

 

[Defiant1]

Actions have consequences, the folks to blame are the one who took the wrong actions. You got what you wanted, the families will now stay together.
In prison until they are vetted and cleared. try and be happy.

So that's a yes, Children should be targeted with the intention of traumatizing them. Should children be physically harmed as well? How about thrown in to gas chambers? Where do you draw the line? Do you have a line?

Stupid people take things out to an illogical extreme. You got what you wanted, you won. They will stay together, be happy. The "targeted" folks are the law breakers. I know that's a tough thing for a Prog to understand but the blame lies squarely on the parents. Do try and grow up so you can learn to debate without being stupid.

So where do you draw the line? I asked you a question. What is NOT acceptable to you?

It wasn't a question, it was a patently stupid thing to type. Weak minded people throw out that Nazi shit when they are cornered. You won, they will stay together you can be happy now. Or is that you think we should just let them all in because they want in?

Here is my position. The "parents" broke the law, they brought the consequences down upon themselves and their children. The blame rests with the "parents".

No, their parents did not break the law. These are people who are applying for asylum and other legal immigrant status. They should all get a hearing under due process to determine if their application is accepted.

You must only watch MSNBC or CNN.
Those who are applying for asylum and come to a valid Entry Point are not separated.
The issue is there are more migrants applying than can be processed at one time so they are told to come back another day.
Some instead of coming back cross the border illegally, either by themselves or with help of a coyote.
Those when caught have now broken our laws.

 

[healthmyths]

It appears that the question is not stupid because everything that the Democrats oppose in GOP legislation point to the Democrats favor everyone coming in at any time.

Now historically we did have that... when on August 3,1882 the first "general immigration law" was passed.
Immigration Act of 1882 - Wikipedia
And the population of the USA at that time was 50,189,209 or 1/6 what it is today.

So our country was founded on the rule of law... not emotion. Not illogic. But founded on the preamble of the US Constitution what clearly states.."provide for the common defence".

So if we have no borders. No laws regarding who can come in what do we have but back to where we were
over 136 years when EVERYONE had a gun. A lot of the country had no law and anyone could come in.

So is that what the Democrats want? Our country to revert back to the way we were in the 1880s?

I'm all in favor then as there would be open season on protecting me and my property it sounds like.

Wow what a farce!

First, there are many other functions that borders provide beside keeping immigrants out.

Second, the Democrats not supporting current Republican proposals does not equate to the Democrats wanting open borders.

Third, the majority of immigrants are not breaking any laws. They are applying for asylum and other various immigrant status. That is not against the law at all. It's these law abiding people who are having their children taken away. That gives a whole lot more incentive for people to try to enter the country illegally.

Fourth, the vast majority of these people are law abiding, peaceful people who are only hoping for a better life. They are an awful lot like your ancestors (except they don't want to kill native Americans).

Fifth, you are a paranoid idiot if you think that these people are a threat to you and your property. Just becuase you are a violent theiving idiot doesn't mean that they are.

Actually my ancestors were native Americans and thanks to those EVIL white people I'm alive at 75 versus when my great great grandfather would have died at 35!

My estimate is 90% of these immigrants are just as you said NO threat. BUT which ones are they? Are you a mind reader? Can you look at 10 immigrants and tell me
9 are ok and 1 is a drug smuggler/child abuser? Can you tell me that?

Not at all paranoid but simple like my ancestors who after hundreds of years of in-breeding with those evil white men have property, family that I'd like to protect from that
1 of 10 that wants to harm me.

 

[TheDude]

Do liberals have the mental capacity to answer this question without developing a headache?

On one hand many suggest those "seeking asylum" should be free to roam the USA because "they're seeking a better life". Course they cheapen everything (e.g. asylum & seeking better life) but that's not the point. On the other hand it must be counter-intuitive to believe borders are wide-open, gates and fences are undesirable and door locks are unnecessary.

 

[OKTexas]

It appears that the question is not stupid because everything that the Democrats oppose in GOP legislation point to the Democrats favor everyone coming in at any time.

Now historically we did have that... when on August 3,1882 the first "general immigration law" was passed.
Immigration Act of 1882 - Wikipedia
And the population of the USA at that time was 50,189,209 or 1/6 what it is today.

So our country was founded on the rule of law... not emotion. Not illogic. But founded on the preamble of the US Constitution what clearly states.."provide for the common defence".

So if we have no borders. No laws regarding who can come in what do we have but back to where we were
over 136 years when EVERYONE had a gun. A lot of the country had no law and anyone could come in.

So is that what the Democrats want? Our country to revert back to the way we were in the 1880s?

I'm all in favor then as there would be open season on protecting me and my property it sounds like.

Wow what a farce!

First, there are many other functions that borders provide beside keeping immigrants out.

Second, the Democrats not supporting current Republican proposals does not equate to the Democrats wanting open borders.

Third, the majority of immigrants are not breaking any laws. They are applying for asylum and other various immigrant status. That is not against the law at all. It's these law abiding people who are having their children taken away. That gives a whole lot more incentive for people to try to enter the country illegally.

Fourth, the vast majority of these people are law abiding, peaceful people who are only hoping for a better life. They are an awful lot like your ancestors (except they don't want to kill native Americans).

Fifth, you are a paranoid idiot if you think that these people are a threat to you and your property. Just becuase you are a violent theiving idiot doesn't mean that they are.

Oh right, they've caught 5 MS13 gang members trying to enter with children in the last couple of months.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Actions have consequences, the folks to blame are the one who took the wrong actions. You got what you wanted, the families will now stay together.
In prison until they are vetted and cleared. try and be happy.

So that's a yes, Children should be targeted with the intention of traumatizing them. Should children be physically harmed as well? How about thrown in to gas chambers? Where do you draw the line? Do you have a line?

Stupid people take things out to an illogical extreme. You got what you wanted, you won. They will stay together, be happy. The "targeted" folks are the law breakers. I know that's a tough thing for a Prog to understand but the blame lies squarely on the parents. Do try and grow up so you can learn to debate without being stupid.

So where do you draw the line? I asked you a question. What is NOT acceptable to you?

It wasn't a question, it was a patently stupid thing to type. Weak minded people throw out that Nazi shit when they are cornered. You won, they will stay together you can be happy now. Or is that you think we should just let them all in because they want in?

Here is my position. The "parents" broke the law, they brought the consequences down upon themselves and their children. The blame rests with the "parents".

No, their parents did not break the law. These are people who are applying for asylum and other legal immigrant status. They should all get a hearing under due process to determine if their application is accepted.

Illegal entry is a violation of law, so just stop with the lies.


.

 

[Richard-H]

It appears that the question is not stupid because everything that the Democrats oppose in GOP legislation point to the Democrats favor everyone coming in at any time.

Now historically we did have that... when on August 3,1882 the first "general immigration law" was passed.
Immigration Act of 1882 - Wikipedia
And the population of the USA at that time was 50,189,209 or 1/6 what it is today.

So our country was founded on the rule of law... not emotion. Not illogic. But founded on the preamble of the US Constitution what clearly states.."provide for the common defence".

So if we have no borders. No laws regarding who can come in what do we have but back to where we were
over 136 years when EVERYONE had a gun. A lot of the country had no law and anyone could come in.

So is that what the Democrats want? Our country to revert back to the way we were in the 1880s?

I'm all in favor then as there would be open season on protecting me and my property it sounds like.

Wow what a farce!

First, there are many other functions that borders provide beside keeping immigrants out.

Second, the Democrats not supporting current Republican proposals does not equate to the Democrats wanting open borders.

Third, the majority of immigrants are not breaking any laws. They are applying for asylum and other various immigrant status. That is not against the law at all. It's these law abiding people who are having their children taken away. That gives a whole lot more incentive for people to try to enter the country illegally.

Fourth, the vast majority of these people are law abiding, peaceful people who are only hoping for a better life. They are an awful lot like your ancestors (except they don't want to kill native Americans).

Fifth, you are a paranoid idiot if you think that these people are a threat to you and your property. Just becuase you are a violent theiving idiot doesn't mean that they are.

Actually my ancestors were native Americans and thanks to those EVIL white people I'm alive at 75 versus when my great great grandfather would have died at 35!

My estimate is 90% of these immigrants are just as you said NO threat. BUT which ones are they? Are you a mind reader? Can you look at 10 immigrants and tell me
9 are ok and 1 is a drug smuggler/child abuser? Can you tell me that?

Not at all paranoid but simple like my ancestors who after hundreds of years of in-breeding with those evil white men have property, family that I'd like to protect from that
1 of 10 that wants to harm me.

What evidence do you have that the percent of immigrants who are violent criminals is any higher then the percent of any other Americans?

Why aren't you afraid of all the criminals that are born here in America?

Perhaps you suffer from stereotyping ethnic groups?

And whether or not you happen to be of native descent, the principal of what I said stands tru for the vast majority of Americans who's ancestors did migrate here.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It appears that the question is not stupid because everything that the Democrats oppose in GOP legislation point to the Democrats favor everyone coming in at any time.

Now historically we did have that... when on August 3,1882 the first "general immigration law" was passed.
Immigration Act of 1882 - Wikipedia
And the population of the USA at that time was 50,189,209 or 1/6 what it is today.

So our country was founded on the rule of law... not emotion. Not illogic. But founded on the preamble of the US Constitution what clearly states.."provide for the common defence".

So if we have no borders. No laws regarding who can come in what do we have but back to where we were
over 136 years when EVERYONE had a gun. A lot of the country had no law and anyone could come in.

So is that what the Democrats want? Our country to revert back to the way we were in the 1880s?

I'm all in favor then as there would be open season on protecting me and my property it sounds like.

Wow what a farce!

First, there are many other functions that borders provide beside keeping immigrants out.

Second, the Democrats not supporting current Republican proposals does not equate to the Democrats wanting open borders.

Third, the majority of immigrants are not breaking any laws. They are applying for asylum and other various immigrant status. That is not against the law at all. It's these law abiding people who are having their children taken away. That gives a whole lot more incentive for people to try to enter the country illegally.

Fourth, the vast majority of these people are law abiding, peaceful people who are only hoping for a better life. They are an awful lot like your ancestors (except they don't want to kill native Americans).

Fifth, you are a paranoid idiot if you think that these people are a threat to you and your property. Just becuase you are a violent theiving idiot doesn't mean that they are.

Oh right, they've caught 5 MS13 gang members trying to enter with children in the last couple of months.


.

By MS13 gang members, you are referring to "people with promise"?.... that is the current PC term

 

[Hellbilly]

Truth.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

 

[mudwhistle]

It appears that the question is not stupid because everything that the Democrats oppose in GOP legislation point to the Democrats favor everyone coming in at any time.

Now historically we did have that... when on August 3,1882 the first "general immigration law" was passed.
Immigration Act of 1882 - Wikipedia
And the population of the USA at that time was 50,189,209 or 1/6 what it is today.

So our country was founded on the rule of law... not emotion. Not illogic. But founded on the preamble of the US Constitution what clearly states.."provide for the common defence".

So if we have no borders. No laws regarding who can come in what do we have but back to where we were
over 136 years when EVERYONE had a gun. A lot of the country had no law and anyone could come in.

So is that what the Democrats want? Our country to revert back to the way we were in the 1880s?

I'm all in favor then as there would be open season on protecting me and my property it sounds like.

They want closed borders to keep out white people from Communist countries or from Europe, people that follow the law.

Solving immigration removes their power over illegals.