To Give You a Size of the Immense and Growing Size of Illegal Immigration

[RVonse]

Rvonse:
“In the meantime, the military should secure our borders from invaders.”

Psst. A little thing you pretend to be a fan of specifically prohibits this.

The real question is…now that you know it’s unconstitutional, is your reaction to:

It's the military job to protect the US from invasion. Where does the constitution say the military can not be used to protect our own borders?

 

[LoAmmo]

Yay! I won!

Not that it was much of a wager…

Edit to add:
If you’d have done the bare-ass minimum suggested, and actually READ what Posse Comitatus Act says, you’d know it’s a law (not a Constitutional amendment) and that it specifically prohibits using the military to enforce LAW.
And immigration is controlled via, wait for it…LAW.
Even if/when we have hordes of immigrants streaming into the country,
THAT IS NOT AN INVASION, in the military sense which WOULD, obviously, call for a military response to repel it.
(As much as Fox News otherwise fills the heads of the dumb and gullible.)

When the Mexican Army brings armored and infantry divisions across the border, let us know. Until then, it’s a matter of law and policy, which will be enforced by those agencies tasked with that—and not by those that not only aren’t, but are explicitly prohibited from doing so.

The military isn’t a police force. Quit being thick and accept a fact when one comes into your world.

 

[Patooka]

Quit being thick and accept a fact when one comes into your world.

Are we placing bets on whether or not that is going to happen? 'Cause my money is that RVonse won't reply for a few days and then pivot from immigration to another hobby horse. And if we are placing bets on that, my guess is he'll pivot to his twisted perverted definition of "censorship".

I'm placing five bucks and a kick in the balls as my bet, in case anyone is wondering.

 

[LoAmmo]

Does the kick in the balls have to be from one of us, or can it be from like a horse or something?

And if it can be from a horse, do we get to pick the horse?

(Sorry—but if the run-up to the Sept.10 presidential debate has taught me anything, it’s that the details matter.)

 

[Patooka]

Does the kick in the balls have to be from one of us, or can it be from like a horse or something?

And if it can be from a horse, do we get to pick the horse?

Sorry, I get where you are coming from. It was irresponsible on my part to be so ambiguous. I am stating that the kick is towards my balls and the mechanism is "dealers choice". But only if RVonse admits he is wrong now that facts have been shoved at his face, as you provided.

My balls are going to be fine. Thank you for the concern though.

 

[Patooka]

Are we placing bets on whether or not that is going to happen? 'Cause my money is that RVonse won't reply for a few days and then pivot from immigration to another hobby horse

Called it

And if we are placing bets on that, my guess is he'll pivot to his twisted perverted definition of "censorship".

Also called it. I guess when people insist on arguing in bad faith, their actions become depressingly predicable over time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rvonse:
“In the meantime, the military should secure our borders from invaders.”

Psst. A little thing you pretend to be a fan of specifically prohibits this.

The real question is…now that you know it’s unconstitutional, is your reaction to:

It's the military job to protect the US from invasion. Where does the constitution say the military can not be used to protect our own borders?

The US military's job, in part, is to protect American territory from foreign invaders... not hyperbole.

 

[bilby]

Rvonse:
“In the meantime, the military should secure our borders from invaders.”

Psst. A little thing you pretend to be a fan of specifically prohibits this.

The real question is…now that you know it’s unconstitutional, is your reaction to:

It's the military job to protect the US from invasion. Where does the constitution say the military can not be used to protect our own borders?

The US military's job, in part, is to protect American territory from foreign invaders... not hyperbole.

You can tell when Mexico is trying to invade, because they will bring tanks and artillery, and be wearing uniforms. They will not be hanging around, hoping to get jobs picking crops, mowing lawns, and cleaning houses.

They will be getting their arses kicked back to the Guatemalan border by the US Army.

 

[Toni]

Exactly, all the focus is on their arrival and what to do about it, while neither Trump nor Harris seems interested in addressing the root causes of why they're coming in the first place.

I'm curious why anyone thinks that US politicians should meddle in the governments of foreign countries to the extent that would be needed to actually address those root causes. The US has a pretty poor track record when it comes to "improving" the governance of other countries, and we are pretty routinely castigated for having attempted to do so. So this idea that any US president should endeavor to "fix" a foreign country in order to reduce the volume of immigrants trying to illegally enter the US is something I find baffling.

I'd much rather close down immigration and get our own house in order. Once we have a thriving economy without so much homelessness and without 10% of our citizens living in poverty... then we look to welcoming immigrants in.

The best way to limit immigration is for the conditions ( economic, political and danger wise) to improve in those countries. That IS something the US can and should help do. Stability improves everyone’s lives.

 

[Gospel]

Exactly, all the focus is on their arrival and what to do about it, while neither Trump nor Harris seems interested in addressing the root causes of why they're coming in the first place.

I'm curious why anyone thinks that US politicians should meddle in the governments of foreign countries to the extent that would be needed to actually address those root causes. The US has a pretty poor track record when it comes to "improving" the governance of other countries, and we are pretty routinely castigated for having attempted to do so. So this idea that any US president should endeavor to "fix" a foreign country in order to reduce the volume of immigrants trying to illegally enter the US is something I find baffling.

I'd much rather close down immigration and get our own house in order. Once we have a thriving economy without so much homelessness and without 10% of our citizens living in poverty... then we look to welcoming immigrants in.

Asylum seekers coming to the U.S. often hail from countries where U.S. foreign policy has significantly contributed to the conditions forcing them to flee. That's the point I was making. It’s not a call for the U.S. to meddle further in other governments—it's a call for those complaining about immigration to direct their frustration at our own government for creating these problems in the first place and to demand that they stop making things worse.

But noooo!!! Build the wall!! build the wall.!! Fucking ignorant asses.

 

[TSwizzle]

Asylum seekers coming to the U.S. often hail from countries where U.S. foreign policy has significantly contributed to the conditions forcing them to flee.

Citation needed.

From the footage of the southern border I've seen, thousands of Chinese nationals have come into the USA illegally. I doubt US foreign policy was causing that. But in any event, most the the asylum claims will likely be bogus and nothing to do with US foreign policy.

But noooo!!! Build the wall!! build the wall.!! Fucking ignorant asses.

Take it up with Brandon.

 

[Gospel]

You don't truly need a citation; using "citation needed" seems more like a way to sidestep the point I’m making. I mentioned that asylum seekers often come from countries where U.S. foreign policy has played a significant role in creating instability. Surely, you're not arguing that U.S. policy had no influence at all—perhaps your position is that its role was smaller than I suggested? If you genuinely believe the U.S. played no role, then I'll take your "citation needed" as the sidestep it was meant to be and leave it at that.

 

[Gospel]

Take it up with Brandon.

By the way, I genuinely couldn’t care less about either political party. In fact, I believe we should abolish political parties altogether, along with the money that fuels them, and implement elections that are entirely publicly funded at both the state and federal levels. Just as you're tired of being associated with Trump, I'm equally fed up with being tied to any of the nonsense we currently refer to as U.S. politics.

 

[TSwizzle]

You don't truly need a citation; using "citation needed" seems more like a way to sidestep the point I’m making. I mentioned that asylum seekers often come from countries where U.S. foreign policy has played a significant role in creating instability. Surely, you're not arguing that U.S. policy had no influence at all—perhaps your position is that its role was smaller than I suggested? If you genuinely believe the U.S. played no role, then I'll take your "citation needed" as the sidestep it was meant to be and leave it at that.

It is estimated around 10+ million people have entered the US illegally, many of them claiming asylum and I doubt many of them will show up to court to hear their case in five (ten, never?) years time. How many of these millions asylum seekers do you reckon are down to US foreign policy? I think it is a drop in the ocean myself but you must think it significant to bring it up?

 

[Gospel]

You don't truly need a citation; using "citation needed" seems more like a way to sidestep the point I’m making. I mentioned that asylum seekers often come from countries where U.S. foreign policy has played a significant role in creating instability. Surely, you're not arguing that U.S. policy had no influence at all—perhaps your position is that its role was smaller than I suggested? If you genuinely believe the U.S. played no role, then I'll take your "citation needed" as the sidestep it was meant to be and leave it at that.

It is estimated around 10+ million people have entered the US illegally, many of them claiming asylum and I doubt many of them will show up to court to hear their case in five (ten, never?) years time. How many of these millions asylum seekers do you reckon are down to US foreign policy? I think it is a drop in the ocean myself but you must think it significant to bring it up?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ So it's unreasonable to believe that U.S. foreign policy played a significant role when many of the countries these asylum seekers are coming from have a documented history of U.S. policy failures? Given the long-standing impact of U.S. interventions, economic sanctions, and political interference in regions like Central America and the Middle East, it’s hardly a “drop in the ocean.” These policies have contributed to the instability that drives people to flee in the first place, making it a critical factor worth considering in the broader discussion of immigration.

Shall we focus on the wall, then? I'm certain that will stop them from coming here. I'm certain the wall can protect us from human ingenuity.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Asylum seekers coming to the U.S. often hail from countries where U.S. foreign policy has significantly contributed to the conditions forcing them to flee.

Citation needed.

From the footage of the southern border I've seen, thousands of Chinese nationals have come into the USA illegally. I doubt US foreign policy was causing that. But in any event, most the the asylum claims will likely be bogus and nothing to do with US foreign policy.

But noooo!!! Build the wall!! build the wall.!! Fucking ignorant asses.

Take it up with Brandon.

You’re right. Currently dems are tougher on the border than republicans. Who would have thought it!

 

[TSwizzle]

You don't truly need a citation; using "citation needed" seems more like a way to sidestep the point I’m making. I mentioned that asylum seekers often come from countries where U.S. foreign policy has played a significant role in creating instability. Surely, you're not arguing that U.S. policy had no influence at all—perhaps your position is that its role was smaller than I suggested? If you genuinely believe the U.S. played no role, then I'll take your "citation needed" as the sidestep it was meant to be and leave it at that.

It is estimated around 10+ million people have entered the US illegally, many of them claiming asylum and I doubt many of them will show up to court to hear their case in five (ten, never?) years time. How many of these millions asylum seekers do you reckon are down to US foreign policy? I think it is a drop in the ocean myself but you must think it significant to bring it up?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ So it's unreasonable to believe that U.S. foreign policy played a significant role when many of the countries these asylum seekers are coming from have a documented history of U.S. policy failures? Given the long-standing impact of U.S. interventions, economic sanctions, and political interference in regions like Central America and the Middle East, it’s hardly a “drop in the ocean.” These policies have contributed to the instability that drives people to flee in the first place, making it a critical factor worth considering in the broader discussion of immigration.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable and I understand why you would think that but have you got any actual data to see how significant US policy has been in the massive amount of people entering the US illegally these past few years? Just seems like you want to say "The US brought it on themselves" and I don't think that is true.

Shall we focus on the wall, then? I'm certain that will stop them from coming here. I'm certain the wall can protect us from human ingenuity.

No need for this tone.

 

[Gospel]

Asylum seekers coming to the U.S. often hail from countries where U.S. foreign policy has significantly contributed to the conditions forcing them to flee.

Citation needed.

From the footage of the southern border I've seen, thousands of Chinese nationals have come into the USA illegally. I doubt US foreign policy was causing that. But in any event, most the the asylum claims will likely be bogus and nothing to do with US foreign policy.

But noooo!!! Build the wall!! build the wall.!! Fucking ignorant asses.

Take it up with Brandon.

You’re right. Currently dems are tougher on the border than republicans. Who would have thought it!

Free trade agreements .

An insignificant contributor is AFTA-DR, which was implemented in 2006 (under George W. Bush), opened Central American markets to U.S. agricultural products, which are often heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. As a result, local farmers in Central America found it difficult to compete with cheaper U.S. imports, particularly in sectors like corn and beans. In case you don't know, farming is extremely important in Central America.

BTW that's both a Republican and Democratic party supported policy.

Meanwhile, we’re being distracted by political infighting, as we're told that asylum seekers are coming here because they've ruined their own countries and now want a piece of the American dream, as if we magically do everything better. The truth is, they'd most likely stay where they are if they had real reasons to—like safety and stability in their own countries. They would have gotten away with it if it where not for those meddling foreign policies.

 

[robnisch]

Asylum seekers coming to the U.S. often hail from countries where U.S. foreign policy has significantly contributed to the conditions forcing them to flee.

Citation needed.

From the footage of the southern border I've seen, thousands of Chinese nationals have come into the USA illegally. I doubt US foreign policy was causing that. But in any event, most the the asylum claims will likely be bogus and nothing to do with US foreign policy.

But noooo!!! Build the wall!! build the wall.!! Fucking ignorant asses.

Take it up with Brandon.

You’re right. Currently dems are tougher on the border than republicans. Who would have thought it!

Free trade agreements .

An insignificant contributor is AFTA-DR, which was implemented in 2006 (under George W. Bush), opened Central American markets to U.S. agricultural products, which are often heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. As a result, local farmers in Central America found it difficult to compete with cheaper U.S. imports, particularly in sectors like corn and beans. In case you don't know, farming is extremely important in Central America.

BTW that's both a Republican and Democratic party supported policy.

Meanwhile, we’re being distracted by political infighting, as we're told that asylum seekers are coming here because they've ruined their own countries and now want a piece of the American dream, as if we magically do everything better. The truth is, they'd most likely stay where they are if they had real reasons to—like safety and stability in their own countries. They would have gotten away with it if it where not for those meddling foreign policies.

Yea, just ask Smedley Butler's ghost.

 

[Toni]

You don't truly need a citation; using "citation needed" seems more like a way to sidestep the point I’m making. I mentioned that asylum seekers often come from countries where U.S. foreign policy has played a significant role in creating instability. Surely, you're not arguing that U.S. policy had no influence at all—perhaps your position is that its role was smaller than I suggested? If you genuinely believe the U.S. played no role, then I'll take your "citation needed" as the sidestep it was meant to be and leave it at that.

It is estimated around 10+ million people have entered the US illegally, many of them claiming asylum and I doubt many of them will show up to court to hear their case in five (ten, never?) years time. How many of these millions asylum seekers do you reckon are down to US foreign policy? I think it is a drop in the ocean myself but you must think it significant to bring it up?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ So it's unreasonable to believe that U.S. foreign policy played a significant role when many of the countries these asylum seekers are coming from have a documented history of U.S. policy failures? Given the long-standing impact of U.S. interventions, economic sanctions, and political interference in regions like Central America and the Middle East, it’s hardly a “drop in the ocean.” These policies have contributed to the instability that drives people to flee in the first place, making it a critical factor worth considering in the broader discussion of immigration.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable and I understand why you would think that but have you got any actual data to see how significant US policy has been in the massive amount of people entering the US illegally these past few years? Just seems like you want to say "The US brought it on themselves" and I don't think that is true.

Shall we focus on the wall, then? I'm certain that will stop them from coming here. I'm certain the wall can protect us from human ingenuity.

No need for this tone.

No need for the tone of the majority of your posts but here you are..