fast
Contributor
If entry into the US was easy, timely, and permissible, I think the number of people using asylum as a justification for entry would be substantially low, but it’s neither, easy, timely, nor permissible—at least not path-free permissible.
Conservatives have a heart, but they also have a backbone. If we were looking at 500 or 1000 people (or heck 5000 or 10000) people looking for a chance for a better life (shoot, make it 50000 or 100000), we’d send them shoes for those who had to walk, vehicles for those that couldn’t, food for those that are hungry, etc. Being there for them with open arms wouldn’t be a problem. Standing by the sayings on the Statue of Liberty, not an issue.
But, the numbers are out of this world. Even if there are advantages of having greater numbers, the disadvantages are great—or at least that’s what we’re told. We’d like to protect our own. We don’t want to harm others, but not lending a helping hand is not remotely the same as causing actual harm.
Even if the disadvantages aren’t as great as spoken about, my suspicions is the costs are still underestimated, but even notwithstanding that, there’s an other issue.
Those coming across don’t give a shit what we disallow. All the talk about a better life goes out the window (as far as im concerned) when they have no respect for house rules. In the beginning, we slap them on the wrist. Next, we let em spend some time in jail. Next, their asses get deported. News travel, and like a disrespected prisoner angry about not getting respect, they don’t learn. They keep coming. And coming. And coming.
Many people see only the positive and downplay the negative. What was abuse of open arms has turned into rampant disregard for what we might allow. We can separate them from their children; it won’t matter. The sad thing is, the mob mentality is so bad that we can akin them to cockroaches. Oh yes, we could say to hell with the fence and have the military napalm them day and night and drop their dead children out the back of B-52’s and let their bodies drop upon the soil from which they came, and my bet is that they’ll keep coming even if the liberals that welcome them in open arms changes their minds.
Why? Because we got the bacon and the beans.
So, I’m not for escalating matters to egregious violence. I’m not opposed to it; I just don’t think it’ll protect us. It takes a special kind of thinking to stop them. But, it’ll take centuries under our current rule of government.
Meanwhile back in the jungle, I guess i’ll just go with the flow. Smile at those that make it across. Smile at those that attempt to stop them.
Curious, how much of this asylum seeking crap is believed? I can see the advantage of putting on a front. A person that isn’t optimistic might pretend to be in front of others that aren’t optimistic—in hopes of inspiring optimism in those that aren’t. Is it like that with all this anger towards making it difficult for asylum seekers? I mean, do you really (I mean really) believe it’s asylum they seek?
Conservatives have a heart, but they also have a backbone. If we were looking at 500 or 1000 people (or heck 5000 or 10000) people looking for a chance for a better life (shoot, make it 50000 or 100000), we’d send them shoes for those who had to walk, vehicles for those that couldn’t, food for those that are hungry, etc. Being there for them with open arms wouldn’t be a problem. Standing by the sayings on the Statue of Liberty, not an issue.
But, the numbers are out of this world. Even if there are advantages of having greater numbers, the disadvantages are great—or at least that’s what we’re told. We’d like to protect our own. We don’t want to harm others, but not lending a helping hand is not remotely the same as causing actual harm.
Even if the disadvantages aren’t as great as spoken about, my suspicions is the costs are still underestimated, but even notwithstanding that, there’s an other issue.
Those coming across don’t give a shit what we disallow. All the talk about a better life goes out the window (as far as im concerned) when they have no respect for house rules. In the beginning, we slap them on the wrist. Next, we let em spend some time in jail. Next, their asses get deported. News travel, and like a disrespected prisoner angry about not getting respect, they don’t learn. They keep coming. And coming. And coming.
Many people see only the positive and downplay the negative. What was abuse of open arms has turned into rampant disregard for what we might allow. We can separate them from their children; it won’t matter. The sad thing is, the mob mentality is so bad that we can akin them to cockroaches. Oh yes, we could say to hell with the fence and have the military napalm them day and night and drop their dead children out the back of B-52’s and let their bodies drop upon the soil from which they came, and my bet is that they’ll keep coming even if the liberals that welcome them in open arms changes their minds.
Why? Because we got the bacon and the beans.
So, I’m not for escalating matters to egregious violence. I’m not opposed to it; I just don’t think it’ll protect us. It takes a special kind of thinking to stop them. But, it’ll take centuries under our current rule of government.
Meanwhile back in the jungle, I guess i’ll just go with the flow. Smile at those that make it across. Smile at those that attempt to stop them.
Curious, how much of this asylum seeking crap is believed? I can see the advantage of putting on a front. A person that isn’t optimistic might pretend to be in front of others that aren’t optimistic—in hopes of inspiring optimism in those that aren’t. Is it like that with all this anger towards making it difficult for asylum seekers? I mean, do you really (I mean really) believe it’s asylum they seek?