Post New

'Robert Kennedy, Jr. Tells Gateway Pundit in Interview 'I AM GOING TO SECURE THE BORDER. WE NEED TO SHUT IT DOWN'. Watch the VIDEO!'
Snip
'We at the Gateway Pundit had a chance to catch up with Robert Kennedy, Jr. this week and speak to him about his stance on securing the border. Please see the clip here:
RFK, JR.: I'm going the secure the border. I'm going to do it by, first of all, the physical barriers and the densely populated areas, the motion detectors the video and the towers in the less populated[areas]'we're going to close it down and all of the law enforcement, local law enforcement, the ICE, the border patrol we talked to all said 'yes ' if we are given permission we can close down these waves of immigrants.''

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/robert-ke...

I surely hope RFK jr clinches the nomination over Biden.
RFK jr is sounding more and more like the old time democrats who put America first
and cared about the working wo/man.

You won't see this article in any left wing news outlet.

Oh and PS....

Jesse Watters on FoxNews had a nice interview with JKK jr last week.
I watched the interview, it was a good one.
JFK jr has also interviewed with other FOX people.

When asked by Watters, JFK jr made the comment CNN nor CNBC won't interview him
and has not invite him on any of their TV segments.

Then RFK Jr is lying. He can't. No one can. No one has been able to do it for the past 60 years.

It's just red meat for the base. He may nip and tuck around the edges, but they will still keep coming because the US has more opportunity than where they come from.

The only option I see is to penalize employers for hiring undocumented workers. Penalize them severely. If there aren't any jobs, the flow will be reduced. Probably won't stop, but it will be reduced. But I already provided more details in a previous post on this subject.

So it actually doesn't matter if I see it. He may as well promise that everyone will have a flying car. That won't happen either.

So it actually doesn't matter if I see it. He may as well promise that everyone will have a flying car. That won't happen either.

Pessimism and doubt won't help secure the border.
Optimism, planning, determination and a positive attitude will at least be a good start
to controlling our southern border. It sounds to me RFK jr has these qualifications.

LurkerMom: RFK, JR.: I'm going the secure the border. ... I surely hope RFK jr clinches the nomination over Biden.
RFK jr is sounding more and more like the old time democrats who put America first
and cared about the working wo/man.

If securing the border is so, so easy, why didn't Trump do it when he assumed office and controlled both the House and the Senate?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a crank, a republican posing as a democrat, who pushes anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, assertions that Prozac causes mass shootings, opposition to NATO and to U.S. support for Ukraine.

He said in a speech that Americans today have it harder than Anne Frank did under Naziism: 'Even in Hitler's Germany, you could cross the Alps to Switzerland. You could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did ... the mechanisms are being put in place that will make it so none of us can run and none of us can hide.'

Kennedy later apologized for being a moron.

And he said that pharmaceutical companies created a 'holocaust' of autism in American children through vaccinations, that the Covid-19 vaccination effort was part of a plan to 'make you a slave,' that 5G high speed transmission towers are being installed across the nation 'to harvest our data and control our behavior,' and that Sirhan Sirhan did not kill his father.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is Trump with a gravelly voice and a much smaller cult.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is Trump with a gravelly voice and a much smaller cult.

I've only seen the surface of RFK jr since he entered in the race. What I have heard so far from him I like what he has to say and apparently a lot of democrats do too.

Kennedy may have been wrong invoking Anne Frank in his statement, but his last line is the point he was trying to make, at least in my opinion.
the mechanisms are being put in place that will make it so none of us can run and none of us can hide.'

The only option I see is to penalize employers for hiring undocumented workers. Penalize them severely. If there aren't any jobs, the flow will be reduced. Probably won't stop, but it will be reduced. But I already provided more details in a previous post on this subject. - 1pg

------------------

Agree with harsh treatment for employers. Need more resources into the investigations to reveal and prosecute this crime. Perhaps some of the 1,700 new IRS agents should be re-purposed,

Employment issues aside, open borders and generous welfare benefits are an unsustainable combination. Associated with this is chain migration which needs to be curtailed along with birthright citizenship.

If securing the border is so, so easy, why didn't Trump do it when he assumed office and controlled both the House and the Senate? - CO

--------------------

Massive resistance by the liberals, the activists, and MSM exploiting the legal system to grind any progress to a snails pace.

bighairymike: Employment issues aside, open borders...

Stop gaslighting. There are no "open borders".


bighairymike: ...generous welfare benefits...

Most legal immigrants do not have access to means‐​tested welfare for their first five years here with few exceptions that are mostly determined on the state level and funded with state taxes. Illegal immigrants don't have access at all -- except for emergency Medicaid.


bighairymike: Associated with this is chain migration which needs to be curtailed...

Like Melania Trump's parents?


bighairymike: ...along with birthright citizenship.

That pesky Constitution.


https://www.npr.org/2018/08/10/637371714/first-lad...

https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-common-arguments...

The other poster nailed it. And I have first-hand knowledge of this.

When we brought my MIL from the Philippines, we were solely responsible for her. She received NO benefits of any kind. One of the first things I did was contact insurance to get a medical policy. No dice because she was already over 65. I actually asked "is there a price where you would write a policy", but the answer was "no". Medicare wouldn't touch her because she was a legal immigrant, but not a citizen. She had no work history, so no SS. No food stamps. Nothing. As soon as she became a citizen, she was eligible for all of that. The federal benefit rules are nationwide. Perhaps different states offer benefits to legal non-citizens (e.g. permanent residents), but the feds don't. And AZ didn't. This was about 15 years ago.

I learned quickly that there is a "no insurance" group of providers, including doctors and labs. The labs were interesting because they had menus with the prices for each service specified, unlike insurance-accepting labs where you have no idea until the bill arrives. But I digress.

The talking points about undocumented people lining up at the benefits trough are utterly false.**



**With the caveat that some individual states may allow something, and that's up to the states. But the feds don't.

There are no "open borders".

Except for the one between Mexico and the US. Just stop.

The talking points about undocumented people lining up at the benefits trough are utterly false.** - 1pg

----------------------------------------------

Can Illegal Immigrants Get Welfare in the U.S.?
Cole Mayer, March 25, 2019

In short'no, illegal immigrants cannot receive the benefits of welfare in the US. However, as with many political questions, the actual answer is much more complicated.

Table of Contents

Qualified vs. Unqualified

Before we can definitely answer the big question, it's important to understand who is qualified for welfare programs in the United States. There are certain people who are qualified for federal assistance programs. According to the National Immigration Law Center, these include:

Lawful permanent residents (LPRs), popularly known as green card holders;
Refugees, people who have been granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal, and conditional entrants;
People granted parole by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for at least one year;
Cuban and Haitian entrants;
Certain abused immigrants, their children, and/or their parents;
Certain survivors of trafficking

So there you have it, Refugees are not illegals. These are the same weasel words the Biden Admin uses to claim illegal immigration has been slowed to a trickle. When your policy is to treat 99% of the new arrivals as refugees, take their name, give them a court date in ten years and send them on their way, sometimes with government paid plane ticket, then you have magically solved the "illegal problem". The once illegal immigrant is now a quite legal refugee and eligible for certain benefits that generically fall into the common category of welfare benefits. Also lets not overlook the burden their children place on local schools, but that is a state problem so isn't a problem after all.

This is also the same BS that allows them to claim the border isn't wide open.

We've long accepted refugees. They get processed, which takes time. I have less objection to that since they're refugees. Note that they can't get benefits if they disappear, as that would be trackable. So they are awaiting their day in court to plead their case. That's a reasonable system.

I know you're just throwing out numbers, but you can actually look this stuff up. The present backlog is 1525 days. Roughly 4 years, not 10 years. And the policy is to treat them as refugees if they meet certain criteria, not "99%". Cuban get an automatic pass as refugees (last I knew). Some nations, that would be a hard sell (e.g. Europe, Mexico, Canada, etc). The latest batch of refugees is actually from Ukraine. Are you going to say they just want to get to the US? That they aren't fleeing war? Last I knew, 271000 of them have been admitted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/us-ad...

That's not an open border, even if the numbers would make some people say it is.

bighairymike: So there you have it, Refugees are not illegals. These are the same weasel words the Biden Admin uses to claim illegal immigration has been slowed to a trickle. When your policy is to treat 99% of the new arrivals as refugees, take their name, give them a court date in ten years and send them on their way, sometimes with government paid plane ticket, then you have magically solved the "illegal problem".

You're conflating "asylum seeker" with "refugee". Asylum seekers are not refugees and are not treated as refugees.

In 2017, 53,716 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2018, 22,560 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2019, 30,000 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2020, 11,814 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2021, 11,411 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2022, 25,465 refugees were admitted into the United States.



https://www.statista.com/statistics/200061/number-....

This is also the same BS that allows them to claim the border isn't wide open. - Dope

=======================

Yep. Even this Toddler recognizes it.

https://rumble.com/v3drd9z-so-full-of-bs.html

You're conflating "asylum seeker" with "refugee". Asylum seekers are not refugees and are not treated as refugees.

======================

OK, you got me there. Here is from the post you are crushing with your laser logic...

"Refugees, people who have been granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal, and conditional entrants;"

I should have used the term "people who have been granted asylum" instead of the word "refugees".

But that still doesn't negate the point that Biden has reclassified what used to be called illegals, as "people who have been granted asylum". That allows him to claim the illegal problem at the border has been solved by semantics. That also allows these "people who have been granted asylum" to be eligible for benefits.

We have also seen over one million "gotaways" come into our country. Why would they do this when they can just walk into the country and claim asylum ? Given the current world situation does this give you any concern about our fragile infrastructure of power, food, water, etc systems. It should.

You're conflating "asylum seeker" with "refugee". Asylum seekers are not refugees and are not treated as refugees.

You weren't addressing me, but you are correct. I am also guilty of sloppy usage of terms. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

I should have used the term "people who have been granted asylum" instead of the word "refugees".

I think the key bit is "granted asylum". When people show up, they aren't granted asylum. They apply for it, and an immigration court adjudicates. So, from what we've sussed-out here, until you're granted asylum you don't get government benefits (federal...individual states may have different laws).

The fed rules are a bit confusing. You have to be here already, and not be in the immigration court system. It appears to help if you have access to the internet to find this stuff out, and get links to the forms.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-as...

bighairymike: I should have used the term "people who have been granted asylum" instead of the word "refugees".

But that still doesn't negate the point that Biden has reclassified what used to be called illegals, as "people who have been granted asylum". That allows him to claim the illegal problem at the border has been solved by semantics.

Nah, you'd still be wrong.

In FY 2021 (the most recent data available), about 17,700 people were granted asylum. Just a fraction of the world's 32.5 million refugees as of mid-2022 are ever resettled; the vast majority remain in countries of first asylum.

Between FY 2012 and 2021, nearly 280,100 people were granted asylum. Chinese were by far the largest group, accounting for 23 percent of all asylum grants during the decade.

Refugees must apply for a green card one year after being admitted to the United States. Asylees become eligible to adjust to LPR status after one year of residence but are not required to do so. As green-card holders, refugees and asylees are eligible to receive federal student financial aid, join certain branches of the U.S. armed forces, and return from international travel without a U.S. entry visa. They generally may also apply for U.S. citizenship five years after being admitted.

More details: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-a...(the%20most%20recent%20data%20available)%2C%20close,decrease%20from%2045%2C900%20in%202019.

I think the key bit is "granted asylum". When people show up, they aren't granted asylum. They apply for it, and an immigration court adjudicates. So, from what we've sussed-out here, until you're granted asylum you don't get government benefits (federal...individual states may have different laws).

-------------------

I didn't know we were limiting the definition to just federal welfare. Many of the benefits come from the various states but there are certain federal benefits the seekers can get and do get.

Here is the scam being perpetrated - the Federal government allows unlimited seeking of asylum and rebukes arguments about the cost of benefits by claiming as you do "until you're granted asylum you don't get government benefits". Then the seeker goes onto the queue waiting on a hearing in 3 or 4 years. During those 3-4 years, 26 states IIRC grant state welfare benefits PLUS SCOTUS ruled years ago the children of seekers are entitled to schooling PLUS all the seekers are entitled to medical care PLUS if the female seeker gives birth while here, she, the baby and the rest of the family unit become eligible for SNAP.

Then there is the cost of housing, language training, job training etc which is often taken up by charities but then on the back end, the Federal Government provides grant money to the charities who provide these services. Same with Legal services for the seekers, many of the attorneys who provide assistance are paid in part with federal grants to Legal Aid societies.

In fairness most of these costs are not direct federal welfare but grants to NGO's who provide welfare like services is a distinction without a difference. So the scam as I call it, is just the Federal Governments way of hiding the true cost of supporting seekers while they wait.

Here is a headline,

Federal spending bill to include $800M in grants for cities dealing ...
Dec 20, 202212/20/2022 03:17 PM EST. Updated: 12/20/2022 03:34 PM EST. NEW YORK ' A federal spending bill will direct $800 million to cities like New York struggling to provide for thousands of migrants...

Here is another headline,

NY says it needs $3 billion from federal government in coming years to ...
Dec 17, 2022CNN ' New York is hoping to receive $3 billion from the federal government through 2026 to handle the influx of migrants that city leaders have been grappling with for months, according to a...

Here is one more but there are plenty more like these examples,

NYC to receive $100M from FEMA to help with asylum seekers
Jun 7, 2023New York City is poised to receive more than $100 million in new federal funding to help manage the surge of migrants, Spectrum News has learned.

It is fine to support unlimited seekers because of genuine compassion but don't think there is hardly any costs to taxpayers while the seekers wait on their hearing. And many of them when they do get their hearing will be denied asylum status so their consumption of taxpayer dollars while they waited was sort of wasteful.

"Here is the scam being perpetrated - the Federal government allows unlimited seeking of asylum and rebukes arguments about the cost of benefits by claiming as you do "until you're granted asylum you don't get government benefits". .."

This is of course by design... the expense to society is enormous, from health care, security, and education all to borne by the average US citizen.

I didn't know we were limiting the definition to just federal welfare. Many of the benefits come from the various states but there are certain federal benefits the seekers can get and do get.

We don't have to, but it gets a lot more complex if we mention states. Then you have to say which state you're talking about at any given moment. Just pulling states out of my butt...Texas may not have any benefits, but CA might. In which case, why would Texas care? CA voters elected their leaders, the leaders passed the laws, and that's all about CA. Doesn't affect Texas at all.

There is a lot to unpack just at the federal level. You mentioned NGOs. Then you mentioned babies born here, which is a difficult situation. That baby is a citizen even if mom and dad aren't. Not sure how much aid would be given to an infant...I don't believe (but could be wrong) that they would give benefits to the entire family, so the amount -likely- would be less. A quick search turned up this, but it doesn't really answer that question:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility/citizen/...

On the other hand, it is the humanitarian thing to do. Do you want to turn away people fleeing Putin's War (either Russian or Ukrainian)? Or those fleeing the violent gangs in -IIRC- El Salvador? Warlords in Somalia? The Taliban in Afghanistan? We could just say "no room at the inn", but we don't. And neither do lots of nations. They welcomed Syrian refugees in the EU, and some here and Canada, we're helping Russians and Ukrainians (in large numbers, as I quoted a few days ago), etc. Gone are the days -I hope!- of turning away the MS St Louis. Sometimes people need help, even if they aren't Americans.

bighairymike: Here is the scam being perpetrated - the Federal government allows unlimited seeking of asylum and rebukes arguments about the cost of benefits by claiming as you do "until you're granted asylum you don't get government benefits". Then the seeker goes onto the queue... there is the cost of housing, language training, job training...

Boater: This is of course by design... the expense to society is enormous, from health care, security, and education all to borne by the average US citizen.

The American Immigration Council published a report this past June highlighting the substantial economic and social impact of refugees in the United States. The report, 'Starting Anew: The Economic Impact of Refugees in America,' examined U.S. census data on nearly 2.4 million refugees and found refugees pay billions of dollars in taxes annually and demonstrate a remarkable entrepreneurial spirit, with high rates of business ownership, citizenship attainment, and homeownership.

In 2019, the refugees examined in the analysis generated $93.6 billion in household income, contributing $25 billion in taxes and leaving them with $68.6 billion in disposable income to stimulate the U.S. economy.

Refugees residing in the country for at least 20 years achieved a median household income of $71,400, surpassing the median income of U.S. households overall.

About 89.9% of refugees residing in the United States for 20 years or more have become citizens, and 59.2% of likely refugee households own their homes.

Andy Grove came to America as a refugee and went on to cofound -- and then lead -- Intel Corporation.

Another refugee, Sergey Brin, cofounded Google (now Alphabet), a company that has more than 150,000 employees and is valued today at over $1.4 trillion.

Al Goldstein entered America as a refugee and has founded two companies -- Avant and Amount -- that are valued at over $1 billion each and employ more 1,000 people combined.

Perhaps you should stop looking at refugees and asylum seekers as a zero-sum game, amassing benefits for themselves and acting only as a drain on American taxpayers' wallets. That's false. The data suggest that the opposite is true: severe immigration restrictions actually harm natives of the country of migrant destination.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2022/0...

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/ne....

And here's how lie and play on emotion at the same time. A PA twofer.

Brin, Grove and countless other immigrant success stories all arrived legally.

Hey didn't make their first act in their new home a criminal one, did they?

That's where your argument falls apart and why democrats always lose on this issue.

I am pretty sure all those companies would have been founded anyway by some other capitalist if the foreign entrepreneur did not.

Brin, Grove and countless other immigrant success stories all arrived legally. - Dope

-----------------

And CO is implying those companies and the technologies they developed would not exist except for the efforts of those specific immigrants.

And CO is implying those companies and the technologies they developed would not exist except for the efforts of those specific immigrants.

I doubt very much he could tell you the difference between, say, a group of logical processors and a Pop Tart but I'm sure he could Google up the fact that Pop Tarts have frosting for us.

But meanwhile, in Massachusetts'
https://nypost.com/2023/09/03/massachusetts-calls-...



Gov. Maura Healey mobilized 250 members of the Massachusetts National Guard on Thursday to help transport the latest wave of asylum seekers to shelters across the state.

But much like the crisis overtaking the Big Apple, Massachusetts has nowhere near enough housing or resources currently available to accommodate the influx.

'Right now, the non-profits that are in Massachusetts are stretched and so thin they cannot provide anymore staff,' state Sen. Jamie Eldridge told CBS News.

Non-profits?? That's not nearly good enough. There needs to be state-supported - and blue state taxpayer funded - Sanctuary Housing for all those good folks. Preferably in Maaatha's Vinyaaaahd and other tony places.

What does any of this have to do with the government sanctioned mass migration taking plae today?

Non-profits?? That's not nearly good enough. There needs to be state-supported - and blue state taxpayer funded - Sanctuary Housing for all those good folks. Preferably in Maaatha's Vinyaaaahd and other tony places.


Liberals should start inviting them into their homes, take care of them and teach them how to be good democrats. I'm sure it would please President Biden.

Boater: What does any of this have to do with the government sanctioned mass migration taking place [sic] today?

Statistics Show Lowest Southwest Border Encounters Since February 2021 (So your fabricated propaganda point doesn't meet reality.)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) today released operational statistics for June 2023, which show a significant and continuing decline in migrant encounters along the Southwest border as well as successful drug interdiction efforts resulting from new enforcement initiatives. CBP's total encounters along the Southwest border in June were the lowest in over two years, dropping nearly a third from May.

'Our sustained efforts to enforce consequences under our longstanding Title 8 authorities, ... have driven the number of migrant encounters along the Southwest border to their lowest levels in more than two years. We will remain vigilant,' said Troy A. Miller, CBP Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner...

In June ' the first full month since the lifting of the Title 42 public health Order ' the U.S. Border Patrol recorded 99,545 encounters between ports of entry along the Southwest border: a 42% decrease from May 2023. Total Southwest border encounters in June, including individuals who presented at ports of entry with or without a CBP OneTM appointment, were 144,607, a 30% decrease from May 2023. These are the lowest monthly Southwest border encounter numbers since February 2021....

Over the past two years, the Biden-Harris Administration has secured more resources for border security than any of the presidents who preceded him, deployed the most agents ever'more than 23,000'to address the situation at the border, prevented record levels of illicit fentanyl from entering our country, and brought ...Mar 9, 2023

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statement...

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-releas...

In June ' the first full month since the lifting of the Title 42 public health Order ' the U.S. Border Patrol recorded 99,545 encounters between ports of entry along the Southwest border

-------------------

What about "at points of entry"?

Another game of semantics? You decide.

CBP's total encounters along the Southwest border in June were the lowest in over two years, dropping nearly a third from May.

Since May border crossings have increased.

'Illegal border crossings rose by 33% in July, fueled by increase along Arizona desert

U.S. officials along the border with Mexico processed migrants 183,503 times in July, as illegal crossings jumped by 33% after dropping to a two-year low in June despite record high heat levels, according to government statistics published Friday.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-us-mexico...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ill...

"(So your fabricated propaganda point doesn't meet reality.)"

So are you denying that this Administration has not overseen the entry of millions of migrants into this country as well as over one million illegal "gotaways" who remain totally unscreened and vetted as to their identities and their motivations?

Wow, thanks for posting. I just posted part of it and didn't think it would already be on the board.

I'm a bit relieved you posted this LM - -I thought you might be one of my Righty buddies who might have disagreed with this.

RFK will be destroyed by the Establishment, if they feel they need to do it.


But many of us from the Buchanan and Perot days of the 90's have felt the same way.

And whether we like it or not, and we all have our preferences - MUCH of the machine is part of this group.......George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, all one big happy family. I supported it in the 2000's....I was dead wrong.

RFK will be destroyed by the Establishment, if they feel they need to do it.

No doubt.
RFK should avoid flying and book ground floor Hotel rooms.

No doubt.
RFK should avoid flying and book ground floor Hotel rooms.

He needn't bother. The few ideas I've heard so far (like securing the border) are too silly to take seriously. Granted, I haven't read his platform, and there may be something controversial in there. But all I've heard so far is silliness.

I know you regard closing the border as an act of optimism. But realism, plus history, demonstrate it is misplaced. It simply cannot be done. We could stem it a bit by spending boatloads of money on walls (legal) and militarizing the border (illegal anyway). IMO, the ROI would not be worth it. Severely penalize employers who hire undocumented workers, and be done with it. It's an inexpensive solution that will make a real dent. Still won't eliminate it, but the ROI will be much higher.

bighairymike: What about "at points of entry"?

Another game of semantics? You decide.

I've decided that you cannot be bothered to read the linked articles provided to you. Had you done so, you'd have had your answer and avoided asking an unnecessary and foolish question:

CBP is processing all migrants under Title 8 immigration authorities, and generally placing individuals who cross the border unlawfully into Expedited Removal or Section 240 Removal Proceedings. Noncitizens who cross between the ports of entry or who present at a port of entry without making a CBP OneTM appointment, are subject to the lawful pathways rule, which places a condition on asylum eligibility for those who fail to use lawful processes, with certain exceptions.

In June -- the first full month since the lifting of the Title 42 public health Order -- the U.S. Border Patrol recorded 99,545 encounters between ports of entry along the Southwest border: a 42% decrease from May 2023. Total Southwest border encounters in June, including individuals who presented at ports of entry with or without a CBP OneTM appointment, were 144,607, a 30% decrease from May 2023. These are the lowest monthly Southwest border encounter numbers since February 2021.

So, no, it's not semantics, it's you.

commonone: In June -- the first full month since the lifting of the Title 42 public health Order -- the U.S. Border Patrol recorded 99,545 encounters between ports of entry along the Southwest border: a 42% decrease from May 2023. Total Southwest border encounters in June, including individuals who presented at ports of entry with or without a CBP OneTM appointment, were 144,607, a 30% decrease from May 2023. These are the lowest monthly Southwest border encounter numbers since February 2021.

So, no, it's not semantics, it's you.

Lapsody posted the same quote up thread. (5954)

My reply (5960)

Snip
'Since May border crossings have increased.

'Illegal border crossings rose by 33% in July, fueled by increase along Arizona desert

U.S. officials along the border with Mexico processed migrants 183,503 times in July, as illegal crossings jumped by 33% after dropping to a two-year low in June despite record high heat levels, according to government statistics published Friday.'

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-us-mexico...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ill...

As we al know, some posters like to pretend that this is just normal migration and that there is nothing to see here. Tis nonsense and these nonsense posters need just need to be recognized for who they are and what they post.

Boater: As we al know, some posters like to pretend that this is just normal migration and that there is nothing to see here. Tis nonsense and these nonsense posters need just need to be recognized for who they are and what they post.

Funny, I don't seem to recall you ever providing data or links to support your claims. Here, here's the data again on refugee admissions by year:

In 2017, 53,716 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2018, 22,560 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2019, 30,000 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2020, 11,814 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2021, 11,411 refugees were admitted into the United States.

In 2022, 25,465 refugees were admitted into the United States.

So, tell us, which president had the most refugees admitted into the United States in that six-year span?


https://www.statista.com/statistics/200061/number-...

"Wow, were those .... legal and vetted refugees or now those coming to the US today? Why do you think we have so many "gotchas" coming in? What are they here to do?

So, tell us, which president had the most refugees admitted into the United States in that six-year span? - CO

---------------------------

So, tell us, why do you pick "refugees" as the measure of successful border enforcement?

commonone: So, tell us, which president had the most refugees admitted into the United States in that six-year span?

It appears President Trump helped refugees more than Biden. Good on President Trump.

Snip
'Who is a refugee?
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.

52% of all refugees and other people in need of international protection come from just three countries: Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan.'

https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a...

On the other hand Biden is doing his best to allow illegal aliens into America
Snip
'What's the difference between legal and undocumented immigrants?
Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa permitted, or otherwise violated the terms under which they were admitted.'

https://www.dshs.wa.gov/faq/what%E2%80%99s-differe...

snip
'illegal alien
nounOften Disparaging and Offensive.
a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.
a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.'

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/illegal-alien

some posters like to pretend that this is just normal migration

We've never had the borders under control and anyone who thinks so is daft. You imply this isn't so, so I think you are daft. You also talk of groomers, etc., so I think you are waaaaaaay out there. Living in So Cal for 35 years or so, let me see some parts. They make very good construction workers and populate many industries, working their way up where they can. Ultimately they make as good a citizen as the rest of us overall. I noted that during the GFC, when the right focused on immigration, that immigrants were quietly exiting the country. A phenomena I'd never seen before. Made no difference to the right, who didn't want to mow lawns, or slop mud (concrete) on construction, or bus tables anyway.

I get no comment from anyone on the right on my proposal. We have embassy powers/laws/treatments that we could extend to a small court/treatment system on the Mexican side of the border and process applicants there, with Mexico's agreement. Since only 5% are eligible, only that 5% comes across. We photograph, fingerprint, and DNA sample everyone who applies and set up courts there and beef them up to process applicants reasonably quickly. We do everything there and with an eye toward treating them humanely. Anyone caught crossing the border goes to this center the first time. I'll leave the 2d time, etc., up to the judge. We cannot return anyone to a country where they are in danger, unless they are a criminal. Somehow, we don't want to overstock our prisons with immigrants whose big crime is they just tried to come here.

Anyway, the big problem to this is it's politically favorable to the right to NEVER SOLVE THIS. The right had their big chance under Trump and what do we have? A few miles of wall that have no real effect on the problem. A full 70% of immigrants come in by plane. Any plans on dealing with that? No. They have you right where they want you Boater and Lurker Mom - slinging mud at the left on an issue that garners lots of votes and they only have to play lip service - easy money.

Off to DMV.

"They make very good construction workers and populate many industries, working their way up where they can. Ultimately they make as good a citizen as the rest of us overall."

I couldn't agree more. I however favor an orderly legal immigration system that has proper vetting of aspirants so that we know who is coming in .

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.