19 Jun 22
@averagejoe1 saidI won't dignify your propaganda use of the term "invaders" by accepting it. Never in US history has such a term been legally used to refer to refugees, asylum seekers and others.
Marauder seems to not know that we all want 1,000,000 immigrants a year to enter the country. So, that must be the reason that we don't understand what his posts are about. Marauder should respond to the title of this thread, the invaders, and then tell us where we are wrong. What do you think? BTWTexas just elected a Mexican -born woman candidate for Congress (Garcia)
19 Jun 22
@shavixmir saidShave finds fault with the reporting of Breitbart. Enter it in your journals. Uhhh, I don't think that they reported, as lib sources did, that Trump was connected to Russia. A lie, of course. Breitbart did not lie. CNN did. Should the Dems pay us back the $40M that they spent on the witch hunt?
Stating that Breitbart is the best source already makes your story completely unbelievable.
I keep defeating your posts, Shav.
19 Jun 22
@shavixmir saidA senseless post, Shav. If you can "Live anywhere you bloody well want to", where might that stop, pray tell? Live in my house?? I cannot imagine responding to this silly post, that countries should not have borders. My def of borders is to keep out people we do not want to associate with. Like terrorists, or losers. Many
Birds don’t have to obey borders. Why should they have more rights than humans?
Or are you proposing that we should stop birds at borders?
Why should I be defined by a border I didn’t create? What sort of governmental interference in my private life is this; that I can live on one street, but not on another?
The whole history of creating borders and upholding them ...[text shortened]... it is acceptable?
Why not have open borders?
Why not have open borders?
Why not… blah blah blah
categories.
Whew. Well, fun reading. This is why I find it fun to watch you delirious wretches. Will be reading this post to my coffee buddies. Hell, we have a border in front of the coffee shop. Ran off a shirtless guy just yesterday morning! He stunk, among other things. And his HAIR!!!! I couldn't believe it.
19 Jun 22
From the right wing libertarian Cato Institute:
"If you can’t tell the difference between 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris at the head of an army in 1940, and 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris today as tourists, it’s time to crack open a history book, not opine on immigration policy. "
"Migration is the exact opposite of an invasion. Nearly all these so‐called invaders are coming to serve Americans. This supposed invasion will contribute to the strength and prosperity of the United States, not undermine it. This isn’t Santa Anna’s soldiers crossing the Rio Grande. It’s four kids with their mom reuniting with their dad at a farm outside of Atlanta. They’re not coming to blow us up or take our stuff—they’re coming to work with us, work for us, and buy our products. They want to be us, not conquer us. And that’s the most important point: A crackdown on migration does not vindicate the rights of Americans to be free from foreign attackers. Rather, it is a violation of our rights to associate, contract, and trade with peaceful people born in other countries.
The fact that these actions are so often illegal is lamentable. But Congress could pass a law tomorrow to legalize migration (as it in fact did for the first century of American history). The illegal part of illegal immigration is a problem easily solved by Congress. It does not warrant the suspension of habeas corpus or calling up militias to shoot the “invaders.”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/illegal-immigration-isnt-invasion
19 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidYou are all over the place. There should be a word for the shattered minds of liberals, it has all been just too much, too soon, for all of you libs to absorb. Every day you try to change things that have been established for 240 years, and you end up chasing your tails and having one concept bump into another concept that AOC introduced just yesterday!!!!
I don't exactly support "open borders" but I think any restrictions on immigration should be based on rational reasons not the ignorant racism and white supremacist views that fuel the right wing hate against immigrants (legal or otherwise).
I think you are having an identity crisis. I would like for you to have had a cup of coffee with the shirtless guy in the coffee shop. Yeah, right. Don't lie, Marauder.
19 Jun 22
@averagejoe1 saidWell I gave my opinion regarding the "invaders" like you asked and you don't seem to want to discuss it much.
You are all over the place. There should be a word for the shattered minds of liberals, it has all been just too much, too soon, for all of you libs to absorb. Every day you try to change things that have been established for 240 years, and you end up chasing your tails and having one concept bump into another concept that AOC introduced just yesterday!!!!
I think y ...[text shortened]... e had a cup of coffee with the shirtless guy in the coffee shop. Yeah, right. Don't lie, Marauder.
The history is that this country from its founding until almost a hundred years later had virtually no restrictions on migration. So it is right wingers like yourself who's views are at odds with the Framers on this one.
19 Jun 22
@AThousandYoung
If there are one in ten thousand of those immigrants acting out as terrorists, he would still bitch, one in a MILLION he would say INVASION, send them all back, even though we NEED farm workers because whitey refuses to do actual work.
19 Jun 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidHere you say 'As many as possible'. which is consistent with the goals of the (USA) immigration policy. So, our law says 1,000,000 per year. We can stipulate that our law finds that to be a good number.
Yes, as "many as possible", that are consistent with what the goals of an immigration policy should be.
Not "terrorists" or hardened criminals or whatever else you have been told the majority of those trying to establish a new, productive life for themselves and their family are.
And their race, ethnicity or "culture" should have zero bearing on immigration decisions or policy.
Secondly, our law does Not make any distinctions about culture, which you seem to suggest.
So what are you saying? Once again, I ask what your point is. Shav says to tear down the border!!!!~!
19 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidSorry if I have offended your sensibilities, maybe we can clear the air with this link. Choose one!!!!
I won't dignify your propaganda use of the term "invaders" by accepting it. Never in US history has such a term been legally used to refer to refugees, asylum seekers and others.
https://wikidiff.com/trespass/invade
19 Jun 22
@averagejoe1 saidFrom your link in the definition of "invade":
Sorry if I have offended your sensibilities, maybe we can clear the air with this link. Choose one!!!!
https://wikidiff.com/trespass/invade
To enter by force in order to conquer.
See my post with the discussion from the Cato Institute; migrants are trying to come here to join and work with us to better their lives, not conquer.
19 Jun 22
@averagejoe1 saidNo law limits immigration to 1,000,000 a year that I know of.
Here you say 'As many as possible'. which is consistent with the goals of the (USA) immigration policy. So, our law says 1,000,000 per year. We can stipulate that our law finds that to be a good number.
Secondly, our law does Not make any distinctions about culture, which you seem to suggest.
So what are you saying? Once again, I ask what your point is. Shav says to tear down the border!!!!~!
19 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidWhy write all that? You simply confirm legal migration. Then you blow it by saying the people coming over the border are coming to serve Americans, but you don't mention the problem of the people who are coming illegally!!! (see previous post on invading )Geez O Petey!
From the right wing libertarian Cato Institute:
"If you can’t tell the difference between 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris at the head of an army in 1940, and 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris today as tourists, it’s time to crack open a history book, not opine on immigration policy. "
"Migration is the exact opposite of an invasion. Nearly all these so‐cal ...[text shortened]... litias to shoot the “invaders.”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/illegal-immigration-isnt-invasion
We know they want to be us. But, Do you think they should not do it legally, according to the laws of the USA? Why are you dancing around the obvious???
You last sentence should have the word 'legal' peppered in there somewhere,, don't you think? Why avoid this pertinent requirement !!?!?
19 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidThen maybe it falls under the heading of Policy?
No law limits immigration to 1,000,000 a year that I know of.
19 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidWell, we can at least agree about the 'FORCE" element. Conquer is more open to interpretation, and as a liberal,, you can understand that I might have a bit of a diff def than you do, as they conquer our grade schools with their children, conquer our hospitals, our welfare programs, etc etc etc. That is conquering.
From your link in the definition of "invade":
To enter by force in order to conquer.
See my post with the discussion from the Cato Institute; migrants are trying to come here to join and work with us to better their lives, not conquer.
19 Jun 22
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidNo, it isn't.
Well, we can at least agree about the 'FORCE" element. Conquer is more open to interpretation, and as a liberal,, you can understand that I might have a bit of a diff def than you do, as they conquer our grade schools with their children, conquer our hospitals, our welfare programs, etc etc etc. That is conquering.
Your "different definition" is propaganda, not any standard one.