Rape Trees

[SweetSue92]

True, I’ve long realized that Sparky.



Corrupt regimes care more about themselves than their people, destroying what economy they have will only lead to increased poverty people (NK is a good example). What refuse are you talking about? Our own ancestors who immigrated here fleeing poverty?


That is true…

Again, they were largely emigrating from their own nation to a British-owned colony OR they did it the legal way. They didn't sneak in by the millions and then attempt to assimilate.

You seem to think the binary choice here is: we let them all in or else we're heartless. But the damage done by letting them all in ILLEGALLY harms American citizens here.

 

[SweetSue92]

What actual data do you have to support that claim?

How many immigrants come in each year?
What proportion are actively involved in serious crime or gangs?

Real data Sue, not conjecture.

Every single one of them who snuck in ILLEGALLY is technically a criminal. So start there.

 

[SweetSue92]

Here's an example of even "non criminal" illegals stealing. Many families come in speaking, say, only Mayan. Of course they enroll their kids in school (for free) and the school is by law required to get them an ESL teacher. That is money that is now NOT going to American-born US citizens whose parents pay taxes. Now it is going to a family who snuck in here illegally.

We are not a heartless nation; we allow asylum and legal immigration.

We should NOT allow people to come and take it.

And don't even get me started on "free" medical care.....

 

[Coyote]

The people voted for it for years and years and years and years.

Tell me all about those elections Sue. Oh…and don’t forget include US meddling and corruption while you’re at it.

Then when they didn't like the inevitable consequences of their votes, they want to storm in here ILLEGALLY

Well, kudos to you…you can’t get much more simplistic than that.

Now, what’s your excuse for your ancestors who came storming over here!

And you're like yes, poor folks, let them in.

Nope. We need to have an orderly process of immigration. What I oppose is your need to denigrate them and your hypocrisy in the standards you apply them (they should stay and fight) vs. your own ancestors who came to build a better life

 

[Coyote]

Every single one of them who snuck in ILLEGALLY is technically a criminal. So start there.

So you aren’t referring to violent crime, you are conflating what is often a misdemeanor with rape, murder, assault. In addition, if they are here requesting asylum, they are here legally until their claim is adjudicated.

 

[Coyote]

These:

I don’t see how those posts are “BS” in relation to my opposition to a complete border wall.

 

[Coyote]

Again, they were largely emigrating from their own nation to a British-owned colony OR they did it the legal way. They didn't sneak in by the millions and then attempt to assimilate.

Lol…now you are attempting to split hairs. They came for the same reasons immigrants TODAY are coming (and they vilified by the nativists of tbe time). The thing is, you don’t demand they should have stayed behind and fight or change their home countries nor do you imply they are cowardly for not doing so.

You seem to think the binary choice here is: we let them all in or else we're heartless. But the damage done by letting them all in ILLEGALLY harms American citizens here.

Ahh no. You are the one creating a binary choice: we either have a complete wall or we let them all in.

 

[ChristisKing]

Sniper towers and hunting parties along international borders should be implemented instead of walls. The wildlife crosses safely. Trespassers get shot and the bodies left for the wildlife.

That's a good answer.

Be creative, what would you come up with?

Honestly I really like the sniper idea. As long as this doesn't involve children that is. So parents if you don't want your children to be orphans then don't trespass. The choice is completely up to you.

Probably because you don't follow a good news channel like RAV News and Ben Berquam. He has covered this stuff for years. They decorate trees with the panties of women who have paid for the right to be brought to the United States. It makes the travesty of the indolence of Biden and Harris about the border all the more worse when you realize and see first hand what has really been going on at the border.

Do you know that in Mexico they have stores like Dick's Sporting Goods where illegal migrants go to shop for all of the supplies for making the trek here? Biden has supported an entire industry of human sex and drug trafficking. It is horrible what some people living at the border find on their property from the influx of illegals from all over the world.

Kamala Harris was meaning to get to this as soon as after she was elected, and Joe, well, he has been busy over in Angola making sure those folks are comfortable.

Wait do the females actually get raped against the tree or is it just used for symbolism? Either way that's horrible.

tariffs

~S~

Another good idea.

Chavez was the glory of the left a few decades ago, until his socialist construct fell apart

Now our Canadian border is seeing 10X's the influx, most of which are from Venezuela

Something you may appreciate >>>
View attachment 1056679


~S~

I heard that story before and in fact I think that I even posted it on here in the past.

What does my being a moderator have to do with my responding here Sue?

Well aren't mods supposed to be neutral in their politics? You're definitely not neutral if that would be my guess of what she meant. You're a nice lady, but you also need to educate yourself about the real issues here.

Now, what’s your excuse for your ancestors who came storming over here!

How do you know that her ancestors were illegal?

Ahh no. You are the one creating a binary choice: we either have a complete wall or we let them all in.

What good would having an incomplete wall do?

 

[sparky]

What refuse are you talking about? Our own ancestors who immigrated here fleeing poverty?

I'm 3rd generation, all my family were 'fleeing' immigrants who applied and came here through the Ellis island standards of immigration.

One could not be a crook, have a disease , and some ethic names were Americanized on the spot

If one did not meet all the parameters , one was detained and or even sent back.

FF to this millennium , and we've let all of this go for the sake of 'sanctuary' , where these backwards countries foist the worst the have on us

This is what we're talking about

~S~

 

[ChristisKing]

I'm 3rd generation, all my family were 'fleeing' immigrants who applied and came here through the Ellis island standards of immigration.

One could not be a crook, have a disease , and some ethic names were Americanized on the spot

If one did not meet all the parameters , one was detained and or even sent back.

FF to this millennium , and we've let all of this go for the sake of 'sanctuary' , where these backwards countries foist the worst the have on us

This is what we're talking about

~S~

Yeah and it's all a bunch of bullshit these days too.

 

[Cassandro]

You are the one creating a binary choice: we either have a complete wall or we let them all in.

There is nothing wrong with a binary choice. However, there is something wrong with false alternatives. The correct question is whether we should have a complete wall or not. If not, should we tear down the wall we already have?

 

[Coyote]

There is nothing wrong with a binary choice. However, there is something wrong with false alternatives. The correct question is whether we should have a complete wall or not. If not, should we tear down the wall we already have?

There is a lot wrong with binary choices, particularly if you are discarding options that might work better or create fewer long term problems. False binary choices are not solutions.

The correct question should be: what options do we have for border control and of those which will work better in a given area. There are places where a wall is viable and the best option and places where it isn’t or the cost in terms of damage is too high. It isn’t a one-size fits all situation.

 

[MisterBeale]

Any alien, legal or not, should be deported if they rape or break the law

Doesn’t reflect on those who are just here to work

The whole reason that the establishment circumvents the law to mass import "refugees," is so that none of them have to be looked at.

The very SYSTEM that we are using to encourage immigration? Yeah, THAT is what reflects badly on each and every migrant that does not come here legally.


By definition, if you come here ILLEGALLY, you have broken the law.

 

[Coyote]

The whole reason that the establishment circumvents the law to mass import "refugees," is so that none of them have to be looked at.

The very SYSTEM that we are using to encourage immigration? Yeah, THAT is what reflects badly and each and every migrant that does not come here legally.


By definition, if you come here ILLEGALLY, you have broken the law.

Except…that isn’t always actually true. People can cross the border illegally and request asylum. At that time their status is legal until their claim is fully adjudicated. If they are not granted asylum and don’t leave then they are here illegally.

 

[MisterBeale]

(2) Exceptions​

(A) Safe third country​

"Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States."

<snip>

(A) Eligibility​

"The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title."

<snip>

​

(4) Notice of privilege of counsel and consequences of frivolous application​

"At the time of filing an application for asylum, the Attorney General shall-

(A) advise the alien of the privilege of being represented by counsel and of the consequences, under paragraph (6), of knowingly filing a frivolous application for asylum; and

(B) provide the alien a list of persons (updated not less often than quarterly) who have indicated their availability to represent aliens in asylum proceedings on a pro bono basis."

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1101%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1101)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelim

"(42) The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term "refugee" does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion."

 

[Seymour Flops]

They are welcome to them
You want a job making beds in a hotel at that wage, they will hire you
You want to work harvesting crops, there is a job for you

An employer with an illegal work force would not want to hire Americans at those wages for fear of being reported. Especially since ICE is about to be allowed to do its job again.

You don’t believe in letting the free market determine wages? You prefer the government keep entry level jobs at sub minimum wages by importing cheap labor?

 

[MisterBeale]

Except…that isn’t always actually true. People can cross the border illegally and request asylum. At that time their status is legal until their claim is fully adjudicated. If they are not granted asylum and don’t leave then they are here illegally.

. . . and you think the way that this system works is good?

You are telling me that you actually believe tens of millions of people are really in danger in their home nation?


More folks coming here for "asylum," than were even at risk from Stalin, Hitler or Mao, yet we don't really know, or the press doesn't tell the nation, who is the originator of this " persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution" to the asylees is?

The definition of those who have the right for asylum, according to law, is;

". . .such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."


You really believe all these so called "refugees," who are coming here, can make such a claim?

 

[ChristisKing]

Except…that isn’t always actually true. People can cross the border illegally and request asylum. At that time their status is legal until their claim is fully adjudicated. If they are not granted asylum and don’t leave then they are here illegally.

Since when?

 

[MisterBeale]

Since when?

Since always.

. . . but here is the rub, the billionaires that run this international graft, know, that if they overwhelm the system with enough "refugees," it will take forever, or well be impossible to vet all the claims of every last so-called, "refugee."

 

[Seymour Flops]

The law requires asylum seekers to ask for asylum at a legal port of entry. The Biden administration has allowed them to sneak in and only ask for asylum when they get caught.