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

[BluesLegend]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When people are outside of the United states they apply for Refugee status.

Asylum status is for people who are already in the United States - regardless of how they got here.

Read and learn:

Political asylum in USA

Since the vast majority of these immigrants are from countries where U.S. foreign policy has dominated since the 1980s, it apparent that Reagans policies in Central America were a complete failure.

The current immigrant "Crisis" is a direct result of those failed policies.

This is an act right? you can't be this stupid?

I'm afraid it IS that stupid.

I see that you can't logically refute what I say, so you resort to childish insults. Not surprising.

It seem that we are not seeing a massive amount of immigrants from Nicaragua - the one central American country that we did not intervene.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvatore are all countries that the U.S. intervened on a massive scale back in the 1980s. These are the countires that the vast majority of the immigrants are coming from.

If you don't see a connection, then your an idiot.

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

 

[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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

When people are outside of the United states they apply for Refugee status.

Asylum status is for people who are already in the United States - regardless of how they got here.

Read and learn:

Political asylum in USA

Since the vast majority of these immigrants are from countries where U.S. foreign policy has dominated since the 1980s, it apparent that Reagans policies in Central America were a complete failure.

The current immigrant "Crisis" is a direct result of those failed policies.

This is an act right? you can't be this stupid?

I'm afraid it IS that stupid.

I see that you can't logically refute what I say, so you resort to childish insults. Not surprising.

It seem that we are not seeing a massive amount of immigrants from Nicaragua - the one central American country that we did not intervene.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvatore are all countries that the U.S. intervened on a massive scale back in the 1980s. These are the countires that the vast majority of the immigrants are coming from.

If you don't see a connection, then your an idiot.

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

 

[flewism]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When people are outside of the United states they apply for Refugee status.

Asylum status is for people who are already in the United States - regardless of how they got here.

Read and learn:

Political asylum in USA

Since the vast majority of these immigrants are from countries where U.S. foreign policy has dominated since the 1980s, it apparent that Reagans policies in Central America were a complete failure.

The current immigrant "Crisis" is a direct result of those failed policies.

This is an act right? you can't be this stupid?

I'm afraid it IS that stupid.

I see that you can't logically refute what I say, so you resort to childish insults. Not surprising.

It seem that we are not seeing a massive amount of immigrants from Nicaragua - the one central American country that we did not intervene.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvatore are all countries that the U.S. intervened on a massive scale back in the 1980s. These are the countires that the vast majority of the immigrants are coming from.

If you don't see a connection, then your an idiot.

We supported the existing governments from Marxist rebels (from Cuba) attempting to overthrow the existing governments.

"Tens of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, many of them unaccompanied minors, have arrived in the United States in recent years, seeking asylum from the region’s skyrocketing violence. Their countries, which form a region known as the Northern Triangle, were rocked by civil wars in the 1980s, leaving a legacy of violence and fragile institutions.

The region remains menaced by corruption, drug trafficking, and gang violence despite tough police and judicial reforms. While the United States has provided the three governments billions of dollars in aid over the past decade, some analysts believe U.S. immigration policies have exacerbated threats to regional security."

Central America’s Violent Northern Triangle

 

[Thinker101]

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.

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.

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.

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.

When people are outside of the United states they apply for Refugee status.

Asylum status is for people who are already in the United States - regardless of how they got here.

Read and learn:

Political asylum in USA

Since the vast majority of these immigrants are from countries where U.S. foreign policy has dominated since the 1980s, it apparent that Reagans policies in Central America were a complete failure.

The current immigrant "Crisis" is a direct result of those failed policies.

This is an act right? you can't be this stupid?

I'm afraid it IS that stupid.

I see that you can't logically refute what I say, so you resort to childish insults. Not surprising.

It seem that we are not seeing a massive amount of immigrants from Nicaragua - the one central American country that we did not intervene.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvatore are all countries that the U.S. intervened on a massive scale back in the 1980s. These are the countires that the vast majority of the immigrants are coming from.

If you don't see a connection, then your an idiot.

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

Clean your own fricken toilet, mow your own lawn.

 

[flewism]

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.

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.

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.

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.

When people are outside of the United states they apply for Refugee status.

Asylum status is for people who are already in the United States - regardless of how they got here.

Read and learn:

Political asylum in USA

Since the vast majority of these immigrants are from countries where U.S. foreign policy has dominated since the 1980s, it apparent that Reagans policies in Central America were a complete failure.

The current immigrant "Crisis" is a direct result of those failed policies.

This is an act right? you can't be this stupid?

I'm afraid it IS that stupid.

I see that you can't logically refute what I say, so you resort to childish insults. Not surprising.

It seem that we are not seeing a massive amount of immigrants from Nicaragua - the one central American country that we did not intervene.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvatore are all countries that the U.S. intervened on a massive scale back in the 1980s. These are the countires that the vast majority of the immigrants are coming from.

If you don't see a connection, then your an idiot.

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

So you believe we are responsible for these people correct?

So you do support open borders from these 3 countries then?

 

[Richard-H]

This is an act right? you can't be this stupid?

I'm afraid it IS that stupid.

I see that you can't logically refute what I say, so you resort to childish insults. Not surprising.

It seem that we are not seeing a massive amount of immigrants from Nicaragua - the one central American country that we did not intervene.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvatore are all countries that the U.S. intervened on a massive scale back in the 1980s. These are the countires that the vast majority of the immigrants are coming from.

If you don't see a connection, then your an idiot.

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

So you believe we are responsible for these people correct?

I believe that we bear some responsibility for what has happened in those countries and that this immigrant crisis is a largely a result of our policies.

If we didn't want to take responsibilty we should not have intervened.

 

[buttercup]

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

Actually, some do. They openly admit it. Of course not all Dems do… But surprisingly, more than you would think.

 

[Richard-H]

This is an act right? you can't be this stupid?

I'm afraid it IS that stupid.

I see that you can't logically refute what I say, so you resort to childish insults. Not surprising.

It seem that we are not seeing a massive amount of immigrants from Nicaragua - the one central American country that we did not intervene.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvatore are all countries that the U.S. intervened on a massive scale back in the 1980s. These are the countires that the vast majority of the immigrants are coming from.

If you don't see a connection, then your an idiot.

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

Clean your own fricken toilet, mow your own lawn.

I rarely hire anyone to work on my property. Not only do I mow my own lawn, but I repair my own lawn mower (craftsman...ugh!)

So far I've never hired any latinos to do any work for me. Not that I have anything against them, it just happens that everyone I have hired seems to be of European descent.

I think thta you'll find that it's a lot more common for Conservatives to hire immigrants than liberals...like for example at Trump's Mar a Lago resort.

 

[buttercup]

I think that we will see totally open borders within the next 20 years. Only time will tell how the policy works out in the end.

I don't know how long it will take, it may not be in our lifetime, but I do believe that their ultimate agenda is a one world government… The New World Order. Which means no more nations.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm afraid it IS that stupid.

I see that you can't logically refute what I say, so you resort to childish insults. Not surprising.

It seem that we are not seeing a massive amount of immigrants from Nicaragua - the one central American country that we did not intervene.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvatore are all countries that the U.S. intervened on a massive scale back in the 1980s. These are the countires that the vast majority of the immigrants are coming from.

If you don't see a connection, then your an idiot.

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

So you believe we are responsible for these people correct?

I believe that we bear some responsibility for what has happened in those countries and that this immigrant crisis is a largely a result of our policies.

If we didn't want to take responsibilty we should not have intervened.

That's a hell of a claim, can you back it up?

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Who did border patrol in 1830?

 

[Norman]

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.

Asking a leftist whether we should have open borders is like asking a whore whether she should have wide open legs.

Sure the answer is no, but what takes place afterwards is something completely different.

 

[Richard-H]

I see that you can't logically refute what I say, so you resort to childish insults. Not surprising.

It seem that we are not seeing a massive amount of immigrants from Nicaragua - the one central American country that we did not intervene.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvatore are all countries that the U.S. intervened on a massive scale back in the 1980s. These are the countires that the vast majority of the immigrants are coming from.

If you don't see a connection, then your an idiot.

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

So you believe we are responsible for these people correct?

I believe that we bear some responsibility for what has happened in those countries and that this immigrant crisis is a largely a result of our policies.

If we didn't want to take responsibilty we should not have intervened.

That's a hell of a claim, can you back it up?

Are you that ignorant of recent history?

The fact is that we intervened in Central America in the 1980s (Did you ever hear of Oliver North?)

We changed Central America and we are responsible for what we changed.

The fact that the immigrants are mostly coming from countries that we forced our policies on is no coincidence.

 

[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.

Who did border patrol in 1830?

Texas didn't become part of USA till 1845.
Arizona and New Mexico 1/6/1912

Following the Boundary Treaty of 1970 between Mexico and the United States that settled all the pending boundary disputes and uncertainties related to the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) border, the national continental border extends 1,954 miles (3,145 km), excluding the maritime boundaries of 18 miles (29 km
Mexico–United States border - Wikipedia

 

[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.

Who did border patrol in 1830?

Native Americans...but they apparently weren't very good at it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

So you believe we are responsible for these people correct?

I believe that we bear some responsibility for what has happened in those countries and that this immigrant crisis is a largely a result of our policies.

If we didn't want to take responsibilty we should not have intervened.

That's a hell of a claim, can you back it up?

Are you that ignorant of recent history?

The fact is that we intervened in Central America in the 1980s (Did you ever hear of Oliver North?)

We changed Central America and we are responsible for what we changed.

The fact that the immigrants are mostly coming from countries that we forced our policies on is no coincidence.

Still waiting for you to back up your claim, my guess is you can't. State the specific actions the USA took which resulted in the "immigrant crisis" or your claim is utter nonsense.

 

[Richard-H]

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

So you believe we are responsible for these people correct?

I believe that we bear some responsibility for what has happened in those countries and that this immigrant crisis is a largely a result of our policies.

If we didn't want to take responsibilty we should not have intervened.

That's a hell of a claim, can you back it up?

Are you that ignorant of recent history?

The fact is that we intervened in Central America in the 1980s (Did you ever hear of Oliver North?)

We changed Central America and we are responsible for what we changed.

The fact that the immigrants are mostly coming from countries that we forced our policies on is no coincidence.

Still waiting for you to back up your claim, my guess is you can't. State the specific actions the USA took which resulted in the "immigrant crisis" or your claim is utter nonsense.

Here ya go dumbo:

America's Role in El Salvador's Deterioration - The Atlantic

 

[healthmyths]

Your logic is flawed. We bombed Europe to rubble and they are not flooding across our borders illegally.

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

So you believe we are responsible for these people correct?

I believe that we bear some responsibility for what has happened in those countries and that this immigrant crisis is a largely a result of our policies.

If we didn't want to take responsibilty we should not have intervened.

That's a hell of a claim, can you back it up?

Are you that ignorant of recent history?

The fact is that we intervened in Central America in the 1980s (Did you ever hear of Oliver North?)

We changed Central America and we are responsible for what we changed.

The fact that the immigrants are mostly coming from countries that we forced our policies on is no coincidence.

So you were ok with Sandinistas, in Nicaragua
It was alarming that in just a few months after the Sandinista revolution, Nicaragua received international acclaim for its rapid progress in the fields of literacy and health. It was alarming that a socialist-mixed-economy state could do in a few short months what the Somoza dynasty, a U.S. client state, could not do in 45 years! It was truly alarming that the Sandinistas were intent on providing the very services that establish a government's political and moral legitimacy.
Contras - Wikipedia

Sounds like these guys were the good guys to you. Right?
In the resulting February 1990 elections, Violeta Chamorro and her party the UNO won an upset victory of 55% to 41% over Daniel Ortega,[112] even though polls leading up to the election had clearly indicated an FSLN victory.[113]

Possible explanations include that the Nicaraguan people were disenchanted with the Ortega regime as well as the fact that already in November 1989, the White House had announced that the economic embargo against Nicaragua would continue unless Violeta Chamorro won.[114] Also, there had been reports of intimidation from the side of the contras,[115] with a Canadian observer mission claiming that 42 people were killed by the contras in "election violence" in October 1989.[116] This led many commentators to conclude that Nicaraguans voted against the Sandinistas out of fear of a continuation of the contra war and economic deprivation.[113]
Contras - Wikipedia

 

[Richard-H]

The post WWII European governments that we established were the brainchild of Liberals and were based on the highest standards of American principals. The people thrived.

The governments that we supported in Central American were the worst form of dictatorships, massively corrupt and a spwning ground for organized crime. They were the brainchild of Conservative values. They have been a gross failure for their people - which is why so many of their people are trying to escape.

So you believe we are responsible for these people correct?

I believe that we bear some responsibility for what has happened in those countries and that this immigrant crisis is a largely a result of our policies.

If we didn't want to take responsibilty we should not have intervened.

That's a hell of a claim, can you back it up?

Are you that ignorant of recent history?

The fact is that we intervened in Central America in the 1980s (Did you ever hear of Oliver North?)

We changed Central America and we are responsible for what we changed.

The fact that the immigrants are mostly coming from countries that we forced our policies on is no coincidence.

So you were ok with Sandinistas, in Nicaragua
It was alarming that in just a few months after the Sandinista revolution, Nicaragua received international acclaim for its rapid progress in the fields of literacy and health. It was alarming that a socialist-mixed-economy state could do in a few short months what the Somoza dynasty, a U.S. client state, could not do in 45 years! It was truly alarming that the Sandinistas were intent on providing the very services that establish a government's political and moral legitimacy.
Contras - Wikipedia

Sounds like these guys were the good guys to you. Right?
In the resulting February 1990 elections, Violeta Chamorro and her party the UNO won an upset victory of 55% to 41% over Daniel Ortega,[112] even though polls leading up to the election had clearly indicated an FSLN victory.[113]

Possible explanations include that the Nicaraguan people were disenchanted with the Ortega regime as well as the fact that already in November 1989, the White House had announced that the economic embargo against Nicaragua would continue unless Violeta Chamorro won.[114] Also, there had been reports of intimidation from the side of the contras,[115] with a Canadian observer mission claiming that 42 people were killed by the contras in "election violence" in October 1989.[116] This led many commentators to conclude that Nicaraguans voted against the Sandinistas out of fear of a continuation of the contra war and economic deprivation.[113]
Contras - Wikipedia

It's none of my business what happened or is happening in Nicaragua. Carter kept us out of their conflict so we are not responsible for it.

To the extent that Reagan may have intervened we are reponsible. But any intervention in Nicaragua was minor as compared to our intervention in Guatemala, El Salvatore and Honduras.

Was I O.K. with the Sandinistas? It was none of my business and not for me to judge...and therefore not for me to be responsible for.

 

[flewism]

So you believe we are responsible for these people correct?

I believe that we bear some responsibility for what has happened in those countries and that this immigrant crisis is a largely a result of our policies.

If we didn't want to take responsibilty we should not have intervened.

That's a hell of a claim, can you back it up?

Are you that ignorant of recent history?

The fact is that we intervened in Central America in the 1980s (Did you ever hear of Oliver North?)

We changed Central America and we are responsible for what we changed.

The fact that the immigrants are mostly coming from countries that we forced our policies on is no coincidence.

Still waiting for you to back up your claim, my guess is you can't. State the specific actions the USA took which resulted in the "immigrant crisis" or your claim is utter nonsense.

Here ya go dumbo:

America's Role in El Salvador's Deterioration - The Atlantic

You post an editorial piece, so we should have let those countries fall to the Marist and turned communist.
Supplying Billions in aid was not enough,