For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[ll74]

We don't want them gunned down.

Of course you do. They aren't worthy of human care to you.

Finish a wall. Or a fence. Or whatever the hell you want to call it. Build it tall. Build it long. Build it deep. Electrify it. Reenforce it with drones. Put troops where terrain creates gaps.

The Senate bill adds more wall, more technology, more resources at the border.

Only let people in at the crossing who come the right way with the right papers and the skills to start working. Deny them access to safety federal net programs for several years. Require them to read English and speak it (it is the common language, and China or France isn't going to change their language for us). Require an oath of allegiance to America and it's Constitution. Require that they support our form of government. Do all this slowly enough to let them fully integrate into our society before we add more. Use a meritocracy system.

You keep suggesting that you want changes to the asylum process that sets requirements on someone's ability to seek refuge. The Senate bill actually does tighten up the ability to claim asylum.

Here's a point you're missing - people seeking asylum are fleeing their countries for multitudes of reasons. Some don't have the ability to meet the things you're discussing here because they've been persecuted by fascist regimes who have endangered their ability to exist.

If you want to end asylum, then just say so. Quit hiding behind the border crossing issues as the problem and just admit you reject the Geneva convention as well as the ability for refugees to seek refuge here.

 

[Bray123]

Oh the lengths you lefties will go to in order to try and hide your racism, both past and present.

You really are an arse.

 

[coati]

We don't want them gunned down. Finish a wall. Or a fence. Or whatever the hell you want to call it. Build it tall. Build it long. Build it deep. Electrify it. Reenforce it with drones. Put troops where terrain creates gaps. Only let people in at the crossing who come the right way with the right papers and the skills to start working. Deny them access to safety federal net programs for several years. Require them to read English and speak it (it is the common language, and China or France isn't going to change their language for us). Require an oath of allegiance to America and it's Constitution. Require that they support our form of government. Do all this slowly enough to let them fully integrate into our society before we add more. Use a meritocracy system.

^^^Yup, sounds like a MAGA Trumper to me. You had me at electric fence and troops.

Well done, MAGAt boy!

 

[ll74]

I never wrote zero asylum claims, I wrote zero entry till adjudication.

What does that mean, specifically? Keep in mind that remain in Mexico is NOT currently an option.

Adding : even during 45's Presidency, the number was NOT zero.....because there is no legal way to make it zero.

Biden is treating taxpayers as second class citizens. Dumping migrants on cities all over the country without notice or funding. The burden it puts on city resources is unfair. Unfortunately Biden and his compliment of incompetent fools will be gone and the next administration will have to pick up the pieces.

Republican governors are shipping these people places without notice or funding. Biden's transport of asylum seekers includes a plan for each migrant.

 

[Bray123]

^^^Yup, sounds like a MAGA Trumper to me. You had me at electric fence and troops.

Well done, MAGAt boy!

When Trump sells a golden Bible that contains edited portions of the Constitution, leaving out the parts about slavery etc, it's clear what he thinks of his own cult followers.

 

[JaySecrets]

Of course you do. They aren't worthy of human care to you.

Reality check. I actually spent much of my ministry life working with Mexican American families in the Little Mexico side of Chicago. I have invested more of my life actively ministering to and with Hispanic and black families than most of you lefties do, because you equate care to government programs. I equate care to individual, hands on investment in people's lives, without any government involvement.
I believe their lives are precious and sacred, given by God. I put a higher value on their lives than you do. And I believe individuals should be willing to leave their homes, go to them and help them. I believe they should, as many have throughout history, if they are under tyranny, fight for freedom, not run away.... particularly young men.

But just as you wouldn't take in half the homeless population in your city because you have limited resources, no matter how much you care, we cannot be the sanctuary for the entire world in America. We simply don't have the resources. We are on the edge of collapse economically ourselves . We actually should be calling in debts owed us, pull our troops out of most of the world, use them to help secure our boarder, kick the UN out and stop hosting or funding them, cut half the government programs and agencies, eliminate most of the entrenched Washington long time employees, and cut funding off for almost every country we are subsidizing other than Israel. We can't afford to keep taking refugees in.

The Senate bill adds more wall, more technology, more resources at the border.

But it weakens the limits on how many are allowed to cross legally. And that amount, it would be years before they ever got a hearing for status in court, if they showed up at all. And why would they.

And this doesn't even touch the amount of untraceable, undocumented terrorists who use that system to come in through the southern border.

You keep suggesting that you want changes to the asylum process that sets requirements on someone's ability to seek refuge. The Senate bill actually does tighten up the ability to claim asylum.

Again, read the fine print.

Here's a point you're missing - people seeking asylum are fleeing their countries for multitudes of reasons. Some don't have the ability to meet the things you're discussing here because they've been persecuted by fascist regimes who have endangered their ability to exist.

It's not our role to care for the whole world. We have enough problems covering our own bases. And there are the issues of the way someone is given refugee status. For example, a Muslim from a Muslim nation can claim oppression and get in under this administration, but a Christian from that same nation whose life is literally in danger because they are Christians are being denied.

And seriously, young men able to fight, if they want the liberty we have, should be willing to fight, to pay the price for it, not just run away because it is hard.

Besides, America is a terrible, racist, bigoted nation where half of us are White Supremacists and Fascists. And we have free market capitalism, the most racist, evil economic system ever. Why would you wish such a terrible location on them.

If you want to end asylum, then just say so. Quit hiding behind the border crossing issues as the problem and just admit you reject the Geneva convention as well as the ability for refugees to seek refuge here.

I reject globalism. I reject invasion by immigration (not hyperbole here - an actual teaching on how to do jihad in Islam). I reject our boarders being used for drug and human trafficking of women and children. And I don't care what the opinion of some global "governing body" is on the subject.

 

[ll74]

Reality check. I actually spent much of my ministry life working with Mexican American families in the Little Mexico side of Chicago. I have invested more of my life actively ministering to and with Hispanic and black families than most of you lefties do, because you equate care to government programs. I equate care to individual, hands on investment in people's lives, without any government involvement.
I believe their lives are precious and sacred, given by God. I put a higher value on their lives than you do. And I believe individuals should be willing to leave their homes, go to them and help them. I believe they should, as many have throughout history, if they are under tyranny, fight for freedom, not run away.... particularly young men.

How awesome for you. Tell me how asylum laws fall into your awesome religous bullshit?

But just as you wouldn't take in half the homeless population in your city because you have limited resources, no matter how much you care, we cannot be the sanctuary for the entire world in America. We simply don't have the resources. We are on the edge of collapse economically ourselves . We actually should be calling in debts owed us, pull our troops out of most of the world, use them to help secure our boarder, kick the UN out and stop hosting or funding them, cut half the government programs and agencies, eliminate most of the entrenched Washington long time employees, and cut funding off for almost every country we are subsidizing other than Israel. We can't afford to keep taking refugees in.

So you want to change asylum law. Great!

But it weakens the limits on how many are allowed to cross legally. And that amount, it would be years before they ever got a hearing for status in court, if they showed up at all. And why would they.

The Senate bill actually increases resources and allows more border.resources to expedite court cases.

And this doesn't even touch the amount of untraceable, undocumented terrorists who use that system to come in through the southern border.

You mean the 169 who "evaded"? Yah, probably still need to do a bit more research on what somebody told you. But keep at it

Again, read the fine print.

I have.

It's not our role to care for the whole world. We have enough problems covering our own bases. And there are the issues of the way someone is given refugee status. For example, a Muslim from a Muslim nation can claim oppression and get in under this administration, but a Christian from that same nation whose life is literally in danger because they are Christians are being denied.

Aah....Christian persecution again


Neat!

And seriously, young men able to fight, if they want the liberty we have, should be willing to fight, to pay the price for it, not just run away because it is hard.

Sounds like you want to change the law.

Neat!

Besides, America is a terrible, racist, bigoted nation where half of us are White Supremacists and Fascists. And we have free market capitalism, the most racist, evil economic system ever. Why would you wish such a terrible location on them.

That sounds facetious.

I reject globalism. I reject invasion by immigration (not hyperbole here - an actual teaching on how to do jihad in Islam). I reject our boarders being used for drug and human trafficking of women and children. And I don't care what the opinion of some global "governing body" is on the subject.

That's great. I wish you well in your lobbying for the changes of existing law which align with your worldview.

 

[RoryN]

So, how's it going in here? Are we convinced that supporting Trump doesn't necessarily make one a MAGAt?

No? Because that's obvious b.s.? And that's why the thread starter is having to put so much effort into this desperate bid to not be branded a dipshit for life?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Reality check. I actually spent much of my ministry life working with Mexican American families in the Little Mexico side of Chicago. I have invested more of my life actively ministering to and with Hispanic and black families than most of you lefties do, because you equate care to government programs. I equate care to individual, hands on investment in people's lives, without any government involvement.
I believe their lives are precious and sacred, given by God. I put a higher value on their lives than you do. And I believe individuals should be willing to leave their homes, go to them and help them. I believe they should, as many have throughout history, if they are under tyranny, fight for freedom, not run away.... particularly young men.

But just as you wouldn't take in half the homeless population in your city because you have limited resources, no matter how much you care, we cannot be the sanctuary for the entire world in America. We simply don't have the resources. We are on the edge of collapse economically ourselves . We actually should be calling in debts owed us, pull our troops out of most of the world, use them to help secure our boarder, kick the UN out and stop hosting or funding them, cut half the government programs and agencies, eliminate most of the entrenched Washington long time employees, and cut funding off for almost every country we are subsidizing other than Israel. We can't afford to keep taking refugees in.

But it weakens the limits on how many are allowed to cross legally. And that amount, it would be years before they ever got a hearing for status in court, if they showed up at all. And why would they.

And this doesn't even touch the amount of untraceable, undocumented terrorists who use that system to come in through the southern border.

Again, read the fine print.

It's not our role to care for the whole world. We have enough problems covering our own bases. And there are the issues of the way someone is given refugee status. For example, a Muslim from a Muslim nation can claim oppression and get in under this administration, but a Christian from that same nation whose life is literally in danger because they are Christians are being denied.

And seriously, young men able to fight, if they want the liberty we have, should be willing to fight, to pay the price for it, not just run away because it is hard.

Besides, America is a terrible, racist, bigoted nation where half of us are White Supremacists and Fascists. And we have free market capitalism, the most racist, evil economic system ever. Why would you wish such a terrible location on them.

I reject globalism. I reject invasion by immigration (not hyperbole here - an actual teaching on how to do jihad in Islam). I reject our boarders being used for drug and human trafficking of women and children. And I don't care what the opinion of some global "governing body" is on the subject.

Why not do what the Bible commands and instead of leaving your home to see people, invite them into your home to live with you?

 

[JaySecrets]

Why not do what the Bible commands and instead of leaving your home to see people, invite them into your home to live with you?

Do point out that command in the Bible.

And it is a fallacy to equate a command to individuals with a command to government. Individuals are called to forgive wrongs. Government is called to enforce right and punish evil. Individuals are called to charity. Government is not. When you conflate the roles of individuals, churches, and governments into one, you have government replacing God. Government has a very limited role. Family is called to raise their young right, provide the good examples in life for them, and care for one another and for others around them. The church is called to be the means of caring for its own, for the community around them, and the world around them. Government is supposed to leave the way free for families and churches to do what they are designed and called to do. Individuals are simply called to love their neighbors and their enemies.

So where is the passage where they are to let strangers come take over or flood into their homes?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Do point out that command in the Bible.

And it is a fallacy to equate a command to individuals with a command to government. Individuals are called to forgive wrongs. Government is called to enforce right and punish evil. Individuals are called to charity. Government is not. When you conflate the roles of individuals, churches, and governments into one, you have government replacing God. Government has a very limited role. Family is called to raise their young right, provide the good examples in life for them, and care for one another and for others around them. The church is called to be the means of caring for its own, for the community around them, and the world around them. Government is supposed to leave the way free for families and churches to do what they are designed and called to do. Individuals are simply called to love their neighbors and their enemies.

So where is the passage where they are to let strangers come take over or flood into their homes?

No one said anything about them taking over or flooding in. Not surprised at all that you went there completely on your own.

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs” (Deut. 15:7-8).

“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land” (Deut. 15:11).

 

[Bray123]

Do point out that command in the Bible.

1 Peter 4:9-19​

9 Cheerfully share your home with those who need a meal or a place to stay.

 

[RoryN]

Do point out that command in the Bible.

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs” (Deut. 15:7-8).

“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land” (Deut. 15:11).

1 Peter 4:9-19​

9 Cheerfully share your home with those who need a meal or a place to stay.

**JaySecrets runs**

 

[Bray123]

**JaySecrets runs**

It's amazing. A guy who claims to have been a minister doesn't know of that line.

Almost like claiming to be a lawyer and not knowing the Constitution.

 

[Lazaran]

Exactly my point. A Catholic football player makes non-controversial, according to a Christian, a Catholic, and a Conservative worldview, at a relatively Conservative private Catholic university, and he is torn apart for his use of his freedom of speech in speaking his own views and beliefs. By contrast, I know several Conservatives who go to hear intelligent, well presented, or just damn funny liberals, disagree with most of what is said, but engage actively and defend to the death the right of the liberal, or atheist or whatever, to speak their views. So who is at war with who again?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesf...oversial-commencement-speech/?sh=c35a793798d9





JaySecretions

 

[jomar]

It's amazing. A guy who claims to have been a minister doesn't know of that line.

Almost like claiming to be a lawyer and not knowing the Constitution.

Well played

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Oh the lengths you lefties will go to in order to try and hide your racism, both past and present.

But you keep your's right out in the open...

 

[Fuzzy1975]

DuckDuckGo's not too bad.

duckduckgo, uses google......or didn't you know that?

 

[LeeKee]

As I said - I disagree with multiple policy decisions AND he's an asshole. You can take out the second part and still have the first. I also don't agree with policy positions of people with bullhorns on campus.

I got ya, i understand. But, I didn't dive into the "bullhorn leader" policies, yet, (will not here) was just using them as a comparison of what people are seeing as "leadership". Having someone repeat after you if not leading. Those professors and protesters risked nothing. They didn't lose their grants/scholarships, or tenures. They have politicians demanding no legal repercussions, and no expulsion. Glory but without harm, no risk of harm. Frauds. Years from now they will brag that they either led those misguided young adults or they will brag they were one of the misled. Weak, lame and clearly not anything of leadership other than exploiting those nieve young adults for their sort of campus cred.

And I can same the same about politicians - past, present, and sadly future.

 

[butters]

We don't want them gunned down. Finish a wall. Or a fence. Or whatever the hell you want to call it. Build it tall. Build it long. Build it deep. Electrify it. Reenforce it with drones. Put troops where terrain creates gaps. Only let people in at the crossing who come the right way with the right papers and the skills to start working. Deny them access to safety federal net programs for several years. Require them to read English and speak it (it is the common language, and China or France isn't going to change their language for us). Require an oath of allegiance to America and it's Constitution. Require that they support our form of government. Do all this slowly enough to let them fully integrate into our society before we add more. Use a meritocracy system.

^^ oh my, quoting for posterity, not to engage with the poster.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall"

as for not wanting to gun them down, there are certain republican politicians who have actively suggested just that, and you can throw trump into the mix with his own comments about alligators & moats

 

[YDB95]

Require that they support our form of government.

Come back when you're willing to do that yourself.

 

[JaySecrets]

But you keep your's right out in the open...

 

[JaySecrets]

 

[YDB95]

You do realize those videos never convince anyone who wasn't already on your side, don't you?

 

[JaySecrets]

You do realize those videos never convince anyone who wasn't already on your side, don't you?

They have actually done the job of convincing many away from your side, just as some of the better at making the argument for your side have won some over from mine. These kinds of videos are particularly effective because they are making very good cases, and solidly well reasoned cases. It's why your side hates them so much and rails against the more outspoken black conservatives in the culture with the most vile racist of language. It's precisely BECAUSE they are winning people over... A LOT of people. And if you bothered to watch the videos, as I have on the liberal argument side (they usually come off as poorly reasoned and snarky, but I give them a shot), you would understand why.