El Paso Shooter's Manifesto

5,694 Views | 43 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Kyle
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Always interesting to juxtapose what the shooter actually wrote and how the media characterized it. I'll leave to you guys to decide if you think it was accurate. I added breaks and bolded headers.

In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion. Some people will think this statement is hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic and cultural destruction brought to the Native Americans by our European ancestors, but this just reinforces my point. The natives didn't take the invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what's left is just a shadow of what was.

My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement. This manifesto will cover the political and economic reasons behind the attack, my gear, my expectations of what response this will generate and my personal motivations and thoughts.

Political Reasons
In short, America is rotting from the inside out, and peaceful means to stop this seem to be nearly impossible. The inconvenient truth is that our leaders, both Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us for decades. They are either complacent or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the American public in our history.

The takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations. I could write a ten page essay on all the damage these corporations have caused, but here is what is important. Due to the death of the baby boomers, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right and the ever increasing Hispanic population, America will soon become a one party-state. The Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st Democratic Debate. They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters. With policies like these, the Hispanic support for Democrats will likely become nearly unanimous in the future. The heavy Hispanic population in Texas will make us a Democrat stronghold. Losing Texas and a few other states with heavy Hispanic population to the Democrats is all it would take for them to win nearly every presidential election.

Although the Republican Party is also terrible. Many factions within the Republican Party are pro-corporation. Procorporation = pro-immigration. But some factions within the Republican Party don't prioritize corporations over our future. So the Democrats are nearly unanimous with their support of immigration while the Republicans are divided over it. At least with Republicans, the process of mass immigration and citizenship can be greatly reduced.

Economic Reasons
In short, immigration can only be detrimental to the future of America. Continued immigration will make one of the biggest issues of our time, automation, so much worse. Some sources say that in under two decades, half of American jobs will be lost to it. Of course some people will be retrained, but most will not. So it makes no sense to keep on letting millions of illegal or legal immigrants flood into the United States, and to keep the tens of millions that are already here. Invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America.

In the near future, America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs. Joblessness in itself is a source of civil unrest. The less dependents on a government welfare system, the better. The lower the unemployment rate, the better. Achieving ambitions social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed. Even though new migrants do the dirty work, their kids typically don't. They want to live the American Dream which is why they get college degrees and fill higher-paying skilled positions. This is why corporations lobby for even more illegal immigration even after decades of it of happening. They need to keep replenishing the low-skilled labor pool. Even as migrant children flood skilled jobs, Corporations make this worse by lobbying for even more work visas to be issued for skilled foreign workers to come here.

Recently, the senate under a REPUBLICAN administration has greatly increased the number of foreign workers that will take American jobs. Remember that both Democrats and Republicans support immigration and work visas. Corporations need to keep replenishing the labor pool for both skilled and unskilled jobs to keep wages down. So Automation is a good thing as it will eliminate the need for new migrants to fill unskilled jobs. Jobs that Americans can't survive on anyway. Automation can and would replace millions of low-skilled jobs if immigrants were deported. This source of competition for skilled labor from immigrants and visa holders around the world has made a very difficult situation even worse for natives as they compete in the skilled job market. To compete, people have to get better credentials by spending more time in college.

It used to be that a high school degree was worth something. Now a bachelor's degree is what's recommended to be competitive in the job market. The cost of college degrees has exploded as their value has plummeted. This has led to a generation of indebted, overqualified students filling menial, low paying and unfulfilling jobs. Of course these migrants and their children have contributed to the problem, but are not the sole cause of it. The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources. This has been a problem for decades.

For example, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic "The Lorax". Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands.

Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn't willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The government is unwilling to tackle these issues beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration because more people means a bigger market for their products. I just want to say that I love the people of this country, but *********most of y'all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.

Gear
Main gun: AK47 (WASR 10) I realized pretty quickly that this isn't a great choice since it's the civilian version of the ak47. It's not designed to shoot rounds quickly, so it overheats massively after about 100 shots fired in quick succession. I'll have to use a heat-resistant glove to get around this. 8m3 bullet: This bullet, unlike pretty much any other 7.6239 bullet, actually fragments like a pistol hollow point when shot out of an ak47 at the cost of penetration. Penetration is still reasonable, but not nearly as high as a normal ak47 bullet. The ak47 is definitely a bad choice without this bullet design, and may still be with it. Other gun(if I get one): Ar15 Pretty much any variation of this gun doesn't heat up nearly as fast as the AK47. The round of this gun isn't designed to fragment, but instead tumbles inside a target causing lethal wounding. This gun is probably better, but I wanted to explore different options. The ar15 is probably the best gun for military applications but this isn't a military application. This will be a test of which is more lethal, either it's fragmentation or tumbling. I didn't spend much time at all preparing for this attack. Maybe a month, probably less. I have do this before I lose my nerve. I figured that an under-prepared attack and a meh manifesto is better than no attack and no manifesto

Reaction
Statistically, millions of migrants have returned to their home countries to reunite with the family they lost contact with when they moved to America. They come here as economic immigrants, not for asylum reasons. This is an encouraging sign that the Hispanic population is willing to return to their home countries if given the right incentive. An incentive that myself and many other patriotic Americans will provide. This will remove the threat of the Hispanic voting bloc which will make up for the loss of millions of baby boomers.

This will also make the elites that run corporations realize that it's not in their interest to continue piss off Americans. Corporate America doesn't need to be destroyed, but just shown that they are on the wrong side of history. That if they don't bend, they will break.

Personal Reasons and Thoughts
My whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn't exist. The job of my dreams will likely be automated. Hispanics will take control of the local and state government of my beloved Texas, changing policy to better suit their needs. They will turn Texas into an instrument of a political coup which will hasten the destruction of our country. The environment is getting worse by the year. If you take nothing else from this document, remember this: INACTION IS A CHOICE. I can no longer bear the shame of inaction knowing that our founding fathers have endowed me with the rights needed to save our country from the brink of destruction.

Our European comrades don't have the gun rights needed to repel the millions of invaders that plaque their country. They have no choice but to sit by and watch their countries burn. America can only be destroyed from the inside-out. If our country falls, it will be the fault of traitors. This is why I see my actions as faultless. Because this isn't an act of imperialism but an act of preservation. America is full of hypocrites who will blast my actions as the sole result of racism and hatred of other countries, despite the extensive evidence of all the problems these invaders cause and will cause.

People who are hypocrites because they support imperialistic wars that have caused the loss of tens of thousands of American lives and untold numbers of civilian lives. The argument that mass murder is okay when it is state sanctioned is absurd. Our government has killed a whole lot more people for a whole lot less. Even if other non-immigrant targets would have a greater impact, I can't bring myself to kill my fellow Americans. Even the Americans that seem hell-bent on destroying our country. Even if they are shameless race mixers, massive polluters, haters of our collective values, etc. One day they will see error of their ways.

Either when American patriots fail to reform our country and it collapses or when we save it. But they will see the error of their ways. I promise y'all that. I am against race mixing because it destroys genetic diversity and creates identity problems. Also because it's completely unnecessary and selfish. 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics form interracial unions at much higher rates than average. Yet another reason to send them back.

Cultural and racial diversity is largely temporary. Cultural diversity diminishes as stronger and/or more appealing cultures overtake weaker and/or undesirable ones. Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place. But the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been here at least as long as the whites, and have done as much to build our country. The best solution to this for now would be to divide America into a confederacy of territories with at least 1 territory for each race.

This physical separation would nearly eliminate race mixing and improve social unity by granting each race self-determination within their respective territory(s). My death is likely inevitable. If I'm not killed by the police, then I'll probably be gunned down by one of the invaders. Capture in this case if far worse than dying during the shooting because I'll get the death penalty anyway. Worse still is that I would live knowing that my family despises me. This is why I'm not going to surrender even if I run out of ammo. If I'm captured, it will be because I was subdued somehow.

Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA Don't attack heavily guarded areas to fulfill your super soldier COD fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day. My ideology has not changed for several years.

My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump's rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that. Many people think that the fight for America is already lost. They couldn't be more wrong. This is just the beginning of the fight for America and Europe. I am honored to head the fight to reclaim my country from destruction
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IN no particular order, this piece of words tells me this guy is

a coward,
a narcissist,
ignorant about how anything important works,
bigoted against 98+% of the country,
and so far from the ideal of what America was meant to be that when he departs from this earth, George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers will beat him to a pulp before he goes to hell, for the contempt he showed our nation's principles.

xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agree or disagree, there's some truth in his manifesto.

He wasn't bigoted towards 98 percent of the country because whites and blacks were not getting targeted inside the store. It was only Hispanic looking people he was targeting. The average black man and white man were able to get out of the store alive without him shooting at them.

I read this manifesto about 3:30 a week ago Saturday online after the shooting. It didn't leave me upset like Oldbear or the general media.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/11/business/media/el-paso-killer-conservative-media.html

Tucker Carlson went on his prime-time Fox News show in April last year and told his viewers not to be fooled. The thousands of Central Americans on their way to the United States were "border jumpers," not refugees, he said. "Will anyone in power do anything to protect America this time," he asked, "or will leaders sit passively back as the invasion continues?"

When another group approached the border six months later, Ann Coulter, appearing as a guest on Jeanine Pirro's Fox News show, offered a dispassionately violent suggestion about what could be done to stem the flow of migrants: "You can shoot invaders."

A few days after, Rush Limbaugh issued a grim prognosis to his millions of radio listeners: If the immigrants from Central America weren't stopped, the United States would lose its identity. "The objective is to dilute and eventually eliminate or erase what is known as the distinct or unique American culture," Mr. Limbaugh said, adding: "This is why people call this an invasion."

There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso this month. In a 2,300-word screed posted on the website 8chan, the killer wrote that he was "simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion."

It remains unclear what, or who, ultimately shaped the views of the white, 21-year-old gunman, or whether he was aware of the media commentary. But his post contains numerous references to "invasion" and cultural "replacement" ideas that, until recently, were relegated to the fringes of the nationalist right.

An extensive New York Times review of popular right-wing media platforms found hundreds of examples of language, ideas and ideologies that overlapped with the mass killer's written statement a shared vocabulary of intolerance that stokes fears centered on immigrants of color. The programs, on television and radio, reach an audience of millions.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/11/business/media/el-paso-killer-conservative-media.html

Tucker Carlson went on his prime-time Fox News show in April last year and told his viewers not to be fooled. The thousands of Central Americans on their way to the United States were "border jumpers," not refugees, he said. "Will anyone in power do anything to protect America this time," he asked, "or will leaders sit passively back as the invasion continues?"

When another group approached the border six months later, Ann Coulter, appearing as a guest on Jeanine Pirro's Fox News show, offered a dispassionately violent suggestion about what could be done to stem the flow of migrants: "You can shoot invaders."

A few days after, Rush Limbaugh issued a grim prognosis to his millions of radio listeners: If the immigrants from Central America weren't stopped, the United States would lose its identity. "The objective is to dilute and eventually eliminate or erase what is known as the distinct or unique American culture," Mr. Limbaugh said, adding: "This is why people call this an invasion."

There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso this month. In a 2,300-word screed posted on the website 8chan, the killer wrote that he was "simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion."

It remains unclear what, or who, ultimately shaped the views of the white, 21-year-old gunman, or whether he was aware of the media commentary. But his post contains numerous references to "invasion" and cultural "replacement" ideas that, until recently, were relegated to the fringes of the nationalist right.

An extensive New York Times review of popular right-wing media platforms found hundreds of examples of language, ideas and ideologies that overlapped with the mass killer's written statement a shared vocabulary of intolerance that stokes fears centered on immigrants of color. The programs, on television and radio, reach an audience of millions.
Common sense should tell everyone that it is a non-violent invasion.

It's not right to have people just waltz into the country with sponsors pre arranged and allow them to basically break the law.

The time to get legal was 7-10 years ago. The wise one's busted their asses to get legal and will benefit from the future. The one's who felt it was wrong or didn't give a crap about our laws will suffer. The chicken processing plant worker's children crying for daddy won't sway the general American public.

Corporations benefit and the Congresswoman Escobar types benefit but the general American public doesn't benefit from free for all entrances to the United States.

Goofy and often wrong Tucker Carson got one right. There's little refugees among the Brazilians types dressed better than the Americans on the U.S. side. They are arriving with expensive purses and every major credit card.

GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/11/business/media/el-paso-killer-conservative-media.html

Tucker Carlson went on his prime-time Fox News show in April last year and told his viewers not to be fooled. The thousands of Central Americans on their way to the United States were "border jumpers," not refugees, he said. "Will anyone in power do anything to protect America this time," he asked, "or will leaders sit passively back as the invasion continues?"

When another group approached the border six months later, Ann Coulter, appearing as a guest on Jeanine Pirro's Fox News show, offered a dispassionately violent suggestion about what could be done to stem the flow of migrants: "You can shoot invaders."

A few days after, Rush Limbaugh issued a grim prognosis to his millions of radio listeners: If the immigrants from Central America weren't stopped, the United States would lose its identity. "The objective is to dilute and eventually eliminate or erase what is known as the distinct or unique American culture," Mr. Limbaugh said, adding: "This is why people call this an invasion."

There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso this month. In a 2,300-word screed posted on the website 8chan, the killer wrote that he was "simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion."

It remains unclear what, or who, ultimately shaped the views of the white, 21-year-old gunman, or whether he was aware of the media commentary. But his post contains numerous references to "invasion" and cultural "replacement" ideas that, until recently, were relegated to the fringes of the nationalist right.

An extensive New York Times review of popular right-wing media platforms found hundreds of examples of language, ideas and ideologies that overlapped with the mass killer's written statement a shared vocabulary of intolerance that stokes fears centered on immigrants of color. The programs, on television and radio, reach an audience of millions.
Common sense should tell everyone that it is a non-violent invasion.

It's not right to have people just waltz into the country with sponsors pre arranged and allow them to basically break the law.

The time to get legal was 7-10 years ago. The wise one's busted their asses to get legal and will benefit from the future. The one's who felt it was wrong or didn't give a crap about our laws will suffer. The chicken processing plant worker's children crying for daddy won't sway the general American public.

Corporations benefit and the Congresswoman Escobar types benefit but the general American public doesn't benefit from free for all entrances to the United States.

Goofy and often wrong Tucker Carson got one right. There's little refugees among the Brazilians types dressed better than the Americans on the U.S. side. They are arriving with expensive purses and every major credit card.


https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/trump-immigrant-invasion-language-origins/595579/

If you want to know the roots of the "immigration invasion" rhetoric that President Donald Trump has championed time and againand which was echoed in the racist manifesto linked to the man held for the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, last weekendyou can find them in the anti-Chinese diatribes that circulated on the West Coast a century and a half ago.

"THE CHINESE INVASION! They Are Coming, 900,000 Strong." On August 27, 1873, readers of the San Francisco Chronicle were greeted with these words, in a notice that demanded, "What are you going to do about it? Nations of the earth take warning."

The notice appeared in advance of the publication of a book that repeated the alarmist language on its title page: The Chinese Invasion: Revealing the Habits, Manners, and Customs of the Chinese. The book would describe, as the subtitle explained, "the twenty-three years' invasion of the Chinese in California and the establishment of a heathen Chinese despotism in San Francisco." The author, Henry Josiah West, warned in the introduction that "the Chinese in California are the advance guard of numberless legions that will, if no check is applied, one day overthrow the present Republic of the United States."

Trump has frequently used the word invasion to describe undocumented immigrants coming over the southern border. In June 2018, he tweeted about border crossers, "We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came." He amped up his "invasion" talk that November, shortly before the midterm elections, as part of his scare tactics concerning the Central American "caravan." "Some people call it an 'invasion,'" Trump said at the time. "It's like an invasion. They have violently overrun the Mexican border." And just this week, The New York Times reported that more than 2,000 Facebook ads from Trump's reelection campaign have amplified his message by using the word invasion.

The El Paso suspect is believed to have posted his screed online minutes before carrying out the shooting that left 22 dead and at least 26 others injured. In it, he called his attack "a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas." And while the El Paso manifesto seeks to absolve Trump from blame for the shooting, its language about an ongoing "invasion" from the south is distinctly Trumpian. It also mirrors the longer list of grievances from the white supremacist charged in the shooting attacks at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March. The New Zealand shooter wrote of wanting to "deport those invaders already living on our soil."

The American brand of nativism has long relied on menacing images of immigrant invaders. The "invasion" trope has gone hand in hand with similar metaphors of contamination and infestation. (Trump has drawn on the rhetorical figure of "infestation" as well, as I explored recently.) Democrats, the president has said on Twitter, "want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country." Since the El Paso shooting, Trump's critics have pointed to such rhetoric as a contributing factor to mass killings. "Anyone who, as president, describes asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border as an infestation or an invasion sows the kind of fear, the kind of reaction that we saw in El Paso," the former Representative Beto O'Rourke of Texas said on CBS News's Face the Nation.

In California in the late 19th century, immigrant Chinese laborers bore the brunt of the "invasion" discourse. While the term historically had been used to refer to the incursion of armed forces, Chinese immigrants were seen as "invaders" of a more insidious kind. In 1876, three years after the publication of The Chinese Invasion, a San Francisco lawyer named H. N. Clement testified at a California state Senate committee hearing that "the Chinese are coming" in the form of an "unarmed invasion." As Erika Lee, the director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota, has detailed, the "invasion" alarms in California ended up drawing national attention, leading to Congress passing the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first significant law ever to ban an entire national group from entering the country.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Agree or disagree, there's some truth in his manifesto.

He wasn't bigoted towards 98 percent of the country because whites and blacks were not getting targeted inside the store. It was only Hispanic looking people he was targeting. The average black man and white man were able to get out of the store alive without him shooting at them.

I read this manifesto about 3:30 a week ago Saturday online after the shooting. It didn't leave me upset like Oldbear or the general media.
Say what? Hispanics are nearly 40% of the population in Texas and 12% in the US. Where do you get 98%?
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

xiledinok said:

Agree or disagree, there's some truth in his manifesto.

He wasn't bigoted towards 98 percent of the country because whites and blacks were not getting targeted inside the store. It was only Hispanic looking people he was targeting. The average black man and white man were able to get out of the store alive without him shooting at them.

I read this manifesto about 3:30 a week ago Saturday online after the shooting. It didn't leave me upset like Oldbear or the general media.
Say what? Hispanics are nearly 40% of the population in Texas and 12% in the US. Where do you get 98%?
Oldbear calling him a bigot towards 98 percent of the country.
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/11/business/media/el-paso-killer-conservative-media.html

Tucker Carlson went on his prime-time Fox News show in April last year and told his viewers not to be fooled. The thousands of Central Americans on their way to the United States were "border jumpers," not refugees, he said. "Will anyone in power do anything to protect America this time," he asked, "or will leaders sit passively back as the invasion continues?"

When another group approached the border six months later, Ann Coulter, appearing as a guest on Jeanine Pirro's Fox News show, offered a dispassionately violent suggestion about what could be done to stem the flow of migrants: "You can shoot invaders."

A few days after, Rush Limbaugh issued a grim prognosis to his millions of radio listeners: If the immigrants from Central America weren't stopped, the United States would lose its identity. "The objective is to dilute and eventually eliminate or erase what is known as the distinct or unique American culture," Mr. Limbaugh said, adding: "This is why people call this an invasion."

There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso this month. In a 2,300-word screed posted on the website 8chan, the killer wrote that he was "simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion."

It remains unclear what, or who, ultimately shaped the views of the white, 21-year-old gunman, or whether he was aware of the media commentary. But his post contains numerous references to "invasion" and cultural "replacement" ideas that, until recently, were relegated to the fringes of the nationalist right.

An extensive New York Times review of popular right-wing media platforms found hundreds of examples of language, ideas and ideologies that overlapped with the mass killer's written statement a shared vocabulary of intolerance that stokes fears centered on immigrants of color. The programs, on television and radio, reach an audience of millions.
Common sense should tell everyone that it is a non-violent invasion.

It's not right to have people just waltz into the country with sponsors pre arranged and allow them to basically break the law.

The time to get legal was 7-10 years ago. The wise one's busted their asses to get legal and will benefit from the future. The one's who felt it was wrong or didn't give a crap about our laws will suffer. The chicken processing plant worker's children crying for daddy won't sway the general American public.

Corporations benefit and the Congresswoman Escobar types benefit but the general American public doesn't benefit from free for all entrances to the United States.

Goofy and often wrong Tucker Carson got one right. There's little refugees among the Brazilians types dressed better than the Americans on the U.S. side. They are arriving with expensive purses and every major credit card.
I'm not sure that's off the mark. The biggest difference - which can be problematic - is the proximity of the native countries, which makes assimilation less necessary. For example, my grandfather spoke German at school once - maybe kindergarten - and he was sent home. His mother was told he could return when he could speak English. Now, we have entire school programs for Spanish speakers. I'm sure if my grandfather could have graduated speaking German, he likely would have. If he spend summers in Germany or could just pop back forth, it would have been exacerbated.

Today, there would be national hand wringing if a Mexican kid is told to speak English at school. Those additional programs are not free, and they already drain taxed, inner-city districts not to mention the myriad related social programs. That's fine if that is how we want to allocate resources, but let's have an honest conversation about it. We are encouraging a entirely new, large, Hispanic underclass. Again, no value judgment, but let's be self-aware and acknowledge what we're talking about.

The problem is the (shocking) disingenuous nature of our Democrat friends. While there are some, very few people are anti-immigration. The Goebbles have conflated immigration and illegal immigration and refuse to have a nuanced, self-aware conversation about that reality. Similarly, in the name of multi-culturalism and "diversity" (skin color not thought of course), they rebuff all efforts to encourage assimilation.

The president or no Republican opposes immigration. Just like there was no "Muslim ban." That's just cheap fake news designed to enrage the weak minded.

cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The president and Republicans oppose immigration from Central America, except for those who work for them.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:


The president or no Republican opposes immigration. Just like there was no "Muslim ban." That's just cheap fake news designed to enrage the weak minded.


Are the people at the CATO Institute who remember Trump's calling for a Muslim ban and have tracked his performance on that goal "weak-minded"?

https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18

On December 7, 2015, President Trump called for a Muslim ban. This ban later turned into "extreme vetting" policies, whichaccording to Trumphad the same goal. Now nearing the 2-year mark of his administration, an accurate assessment of these policies is now possible. All the major categories of entries to the United Statesrefugees, immigrants, and visitorsare significantly down under the Trump administration for Muslims or applicants from Muslim majority countries.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1401/establish-ban-muslims-entering-us/

One of President Donald Trump's most controversial campaign promises was to establish a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Whether that was the intention of a series of executive orders after he took office is widely debated. But it is clear that the orders impeded the entry of Muslims from some countries, though not from all parts of the world.
About a week after taking office, Trump signed an executive order temporarily suspending immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. refugee program. He indefinitely stopped the entry of Syrian refugees. Courts blocked the order's implementation after states sued alleging it violated constitutional religious liberties.

Trump subsequently signed two more executive orders, each a revision of the previous one, in response to multiple lawsuits challenging their legality. Opponents of the orders said they amounted to a Muslim ban. The Trump administration argued they were not banning immigration based on religion, and were rather driven by national security concerns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/

Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

In a statement released by his campaign Monday afternoon, Trump included recent poll findings that he says show that a sizable segment of the Muslim population has "great hatred towards Americans."

"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump is quoted as saying in the statement. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

xiledinok said:

Agree or disagree, there's some truth in his manifesto.

He wasn't bigoted towards 98 percent of the country because whites and blacks were not getting targeted inside the store. It was only Hispanic looking people he was targeting. The average black man and white man were able to get out of the store alive without him shooting at them.

I read this manifesto about 3:30 a week ago Saturday online after the shooting. It didn't leave me upset like Oldbear or the general media.
Say what? Hispanics are nearly 40% of the population in Texas and 12% in the US. Where do you get 98%?
He's bloviating about my comment that the shooter was bigoted against 98% of the country. His argument was apparently that if he did not shoot them, he did not hate them. The manifesto shows the shooter was seriously delusional and hated just about everyone, just some more than others.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Jack Bauer said:

xiledinok said:

Agree or disagree, there's some truth in his manifesto.

He wasn't bigoted towards 98 percent of the country because whites and blacks were not getting targeted inside the store. It was only Hispanic looking people he was targeting. The average black man and white man were able to get out of the store alive without him shooting at them.

I read this manifesto about 3:30 a week ago Saturday online after the shooting. It didn't leave me upset like Oldbear or the general media.
Say what? Hispanics are nearly 40% of the population in Texas and 12% in the US. Where do you get 98%?
He's bloviating about my comment that the shooter was bigoted against 98% of the country. His argument was apparently that if he did not shoot them, he did not hate them. The manifesto shows the shooter was seriously delusional and hated just about everyone, just some more than others.
Try evidence. He admitted he was targeting Hispanic looking people, which is consistent with reports in the store.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/11/business/media/el-paso-killer-conservative-media.html

Tucker Carlson went on his prime-time Fox News show in April last year and told his viewers not to be fooled. The thousands of Central Americans on their way to the United States were "border jumpers," not refugees, he said. "Will anyone in power do anything to protect America this time," he asked, "or will leaders sit passively back as the invasion continues?"

When another group approached the border six months later, Ann Coulter, appearing as a guest on Jeanine Pirro's Fox News show, offered a dispassionately violent suggestion about what could be done to stem the flow of migrants: "You can shoot invaders."

A few days after, Rush Limbaugh issued a grim prognosis to his millions of radio listeners: If the immigrants from Central America weren't stopped, the United States would lose its identity. "The objective is to dilute and eventually eliminate or erase what is known as the distinct or unique American culture," Mr. Limbaugh said, adding: "This is why people call this an invasion."

There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso this month. In a 2,300-word screed posted on the website 8chan, the killer wrote that he was "simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion."

It remains unclear what, or who, ultimately shaped the views of the white, 21-year-old gunman, or whether he was aware of the media commentary. But his post contains numerous references to "invasion" and cultural "replacement" ideas that, until recently, were relegated to the fringes of the nationalist right.

An extensive New York Times review of popular right-wing media platforms found hundreds of examples of language, ideas and ideologies that overlapped with the mass killer's written statement a shared vocabulary of intolerance that stokes fears centered on immigrants of color. The programs, on television and radio, reach an audience of millions.
Common sense should tell everyone that it is a non-violent invasion.

It's not right to have people just waltz into the country with sponsors pre arranged and allow them to basically break the law.

The time to get legal was 7-10 years ago. The wise one's busted their asses to get legal and will benefit from the future. The one's who felt it was wrong or didn't give a crap about our laws will suffer. The chicken processing plant worker's children crying for daddy won't sway the general American public.

Corporations benefit and the Congresswoman Escobar types benefit but the general American public doesn't benefit from free for all entrances to the United States.

Goofy and often wrong Tucker Carson got one right. There's little refugees among the Brazilians types dressed better than the Americans on the U.S. side. They are arriving with expensive purses and every major credit card.
I'm not sure that's off the mark. The biggest difference - which can be problematic - is the proximity of the native countries, which makes assimilation less necessary. For example, my grandfather spoke German at school once - maybe kindergarten - and he was sent home. His mother was told he could return when he could speak English. Now, we have entire school programs for Spanish speakers. I'm sure if my grandfather could have graduated speaking German, he likely would have. If he spend summers in Germany or could just pop back forth, it would have been exacerbated.

Today, there would be national hand wringing if a Mexican kid is told to speak English at school. Those additional programs are not free, and they already drain taxed, inner-city districts not to mention the myriad related social programs. That's fine if that is how we want to allocate resources, but let's have an honest conversation about it. We are encouraging a entirely new, large, Hispanic underclass. Again, no value judgment, but let's be self-aware and acknowledge what we're talking about.

The problem is the (shocking) disingenuous nature of our Democrat friends. While there are some, very few people are anti-immigration. The Goebbles have conflated immigration and illegal immigration and refuse to have a nuanced, self-aware conversation about that reality. Similarly, in the name of multi-culturalism and "diversity" (skin color not thought of course), they rebuff all efforts to encourage assimilation.

The president or no Republican opposes immigration. Just like there was no "Muslim ban." That's just cheap fake news designed to enrage the weak minded.


The Germans I was related to change their spelling of their last name and told their kids to speak English only.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There are some horrible conditions in South America. I believe that people should have the right to come to this country.

I cannot, however, get past the fact that I can't just pick up my stuff, fly to England and say "I live here now". In fact, when my student visa expired in 1996 I was given 48 hours to renew it or leave the country.

I can't move to Canada, well, I can but I couldn't legally work there without a work visa.

I guess I don't understand what is so complex about being in a country illegally.

Just because your country sucks (yeah I said it...come at me, I helped de mine an area between eritrea and Ethiopia I can state with FACT that some places on this earth SUCK) doesn't give you the right to come to this one. That's not what asylum is for. You can't claim asylum just because your neighborhood is overrun with crime.

Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Kyle said:


The president or no Republican opposes immigration. Just like there was no "Muslim ban." That's just cheap fake news designed to enrage the weak minded.


Are the people at the CATO Institute who remember Trump's calling for a Muslim ban and have tracked his performance on that goal "weak-minded"?

https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18

On December 7, 2015, President Trump called for a Muslim ban. This ban later turned into "extreme vetting" policies, whichaccording to Trumphad the same goal. Now nearing the 2-year mark of his administration, an accurate assessment of these policies is now possible. All the major categories of entries to the United Statesrefugees, immigrants, and visitorsare significantly down under the Trump administration for Muslims or applicants from Muslim majority countries.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1401/establish-ban-muslims-entering-us/

One of President Donald Trump's most controversial campaign promises was to establish a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Whether that was the intention of a series of executive orders after he took office is widely debated. But it is clear that the orders impeded the entry of Muslims from some countries, though not from all parts of the world.
About a week after taking office, Trump signed an executive order temporarily suspending immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. refugee program. He indefinitely stopped the entry of Syrian refugees. Courts blocked the order's implementation after states sued alleging it violated constitutional religious liberties.

Trump subsequently signed two more executive orders, each a revision of the previous one, in response to multiple lawsuits challenging their legality. Opponents of the orders said they amounted to a Muslim ban. The Trump administration argued they were not banning immigration based on religion, and were rather driven by national security concerns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/

Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

In a statement released by his campaign Monday afternoon, Trump included recent poll findings that he says show that a sizable segment of the Muslim population has "great hatred towards Americans."

"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump is quoted as saying in the statement. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.
Again with the lack of self-awareness. Your own post contradicts you:

"But it is clear that the orders impeded the entry of Muslims from some countries, though not from all parts of the world."

No one is disputing that the president supported limiting entry from countries with extremely high levels of terrorist support both private and state-supported. You do understand the difference, right?

The reason people get frustrated trying to discuss issues with you is because you're disingenuous.

If you show an executive order that would have banned all Muslims from entering the country, then I'll acknowledge I'm incorrect. Posting emotional hysteria from emotional hysteric sites is not helpful.
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

The president and Republicans oppose immigration from Central America, except for those who work for them.
Chuckle.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

cinque said:

The president and Republicans oppose immigration from Central America, except for those who work for them.
Chuckle.


There's some truth in it.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

Jinx 2 said:

Kyle said:


The president or no Republican opposes immigration. Just like there was no "Muslim ban." That's just cheap fake news designed to enrage the weak minded.


Are the people at the CATO Institute who remember Trump's calling for a Muslim ban and have tracked his performance on that goal "weak-minded"?

https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18

On December 7, 2015, President Trump called for a Muslim ban. This ban later turned into "extreme vetting" policies, whichaccording to Trumphad the same goal. Now nearing the 2-year mark of his administration, an accurate assessment of these policies is now possible. All the major categories of entries to the United Statesrefugees, immigrants, and visitorsare significantly down under the Trump administration for Muslims or applicants from Muslim majority countries.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1401/establish-ban-muslims-entering-us/

One of President Donald Trump's most controversial campaign promises was to establish a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Whether that was the intention of a series of executive orders after he took office is widely debated. But it is clear that the orders impeded the entry of Muslims from some countries, though not from all parts of the world.
About a week after taking office, Trump signed an executive order temporarily suspending immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. refugee program. He indefinitely stopped the entry of Syrian refugees. Courts blocked the order's implementation after states sued alleging it violated constitutional religious liberties.

Trump subsequently signed two more executive orders, each a revision of the previous one, in response to multiple lawsuits challenging their legality. Opponents of the orders said they amounted to a Muslim ban. The Trump administration argued they were not banning immigration based on religion, and were rather driven by national security concerns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/

Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

In a statement released by his campaign Monday afternoon, Trump included recent poll findings that he says show that a sizable segment of the Muslim population has "great hatred towards Americans."

"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump is quoted as saying in the statement. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.
Again with the lack of self-awareness. Your own post contradicts you:

"But it is clear that the orders impeded the entry of Muslims from some countries, though not from all parts of the world."

No one is disputing that the president supported limiting entry from countries with extremely high levels of terrorist support both private and state-supported. You do understand the difference, right?

The reason people get frustrated trying to discuss issues with you is because you're disingenuous.

If you show an executive order that would have banned all Muslims from entering the country, then I'll acknowledge I'm incorrect. Posting emotional hysteria from emotional hysteric sites is not helpful.
The CATO Institute is not typically emotionally hysterical, Kyle.

Trump called for a Muslim ban during his presidential campaign.

He tried to enact one soon after he was elected, using means his advisors thought might pass muster with the court.

The first two didn't, but he kept trying.

The facts that his initial 2 plans didn't succeed because it was obvious to federal judges that they were Muslim bans seems to have escaped you. Talk about disingenuous. A president states he wants a Muslim ban and then bans travelers from several Muslim majority countries and then tries to say that it's not a Muslim ban, it's a terrorist ban.... And you buy that?

Ultimately, SCOTUS allowed a partial ban on travelers/immigrants. That case, detailed here on on SCOTUSblog, another source that's clearly not hysterical, dealt with the third proposal his administration advanced. It passed 5/4.

Your snide and superior tone has looks even worse when you're just flat wrong. You do understand that all Musltims aren't terrorists? That many of the people "banned" were students, professors and other working professionals who lived and worked here or were married to American citizens? And you have observed that we're doing a damn good job of terrorizing ourselves with no help from Muslims, right? If we really wanted to stop terrorism in the U.S., we could start with making sure Joe Average can't get his grimy little hands on assault weapons and ammo by ordering it online.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx, there's a real need for the additional fencing down at the border. The consequences of neglected and poverty stricken war torn countries are at our border. None are political refugees though all are the result of the war on drugs.
The Catholic Church cannot fill the plates in those war torn countries. Sending them north.
The Brazilian poverty stricken folks are all headed north.
These folks are getting the initial message that assimilation matters. You can still keep your culture.

FWIW, this shooter changes nothing other than the blame has to be politically forced away from the NRA agenda.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Jinx, there's a real need for the additional fencing down at the border. The consequences of neglected and poverty stricken war torn countries are at our border. None are political refugees though all are the result of the war on drugs.
The Catholic Church cannot fill the plates in those war torn countries. Sending them north.
The Brazilian poverty stricken folks are all headed north.
These folks are getting the initial message that assimilation matters. You can still keep your culture.

FWIW, this shooter changes nothing other than the blame has to be politically forced away from the NRA agenda.
Xiled, if the Trump admin wants people to stop coming to the border, they need to change our asylum laws.

Building walls won't stop the flow of refugees--fleeing drug wars, poverty, whatever--as long as there's a faint hope they can gain asylum. And asking for asylum is a legal right we offer. We don't have to grant it. But if someone presents at the border and asks for it, we have to consider their case. That's the law.

So why hasn't the Trump Admin addressed that? I suspect it's because Trump wants the optics of too many people coming to the border to gin up lots of fear and loathing to help get him re-elected. Either that, or he's a policy ignoramus. Probably both.

I fully understand we can't take them all. But why aren't we also working with other nations to address the cause of the refugee crisis? Italy and Greece don't want any more Syrians or Africans--and who can blame them? But I don't see them huffing and puffing about an invasion when people are so desperate they're setting out on non-seaworthy boats when they can't swim and there's a 10% risk of drowning.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx, there's a real need for the additional fencing down at the border. The consequences of neglected and poverty stricken war torn countries are at our border. None are political refugees though all are the result of the war on drugs.
The Catholic Church cannot fill the plates in those war torn countries. Sending them north.
The Brazilian poverty stricken folks are all headed north.
These folks are getting the initial message that assimilation matters. You can still keep your culture.

FWIW, this shooter changes nothing other than the blame has to be politically forced away from the NRA agenda.
Xiled, if the Trump admin wants people to stop coming to the border, they need to change our asylum laws.

Building walls won't stop the flow of refugees--fleeing drug wars, poverty, whatever--as long as there's a faint hope they can gain asylum. And asking for asylum is a legal right we offer. We don't have to grant it. But if someone presents at the border and asks for it, we have to consider their case. That's the law.

So why hasn't the Trump Admin addressed that? I suspect it's because Trump wants the optics of too many people coming to the border to gin up lots of fear and loathing to help get him re-elected. Either that, or he's a policy ignoramus. Probably both.

I fully understand we can't take them all. But why aren't we also working with other nations to address the cause of the refugee crisis? Italy and Greece don't want any more Syrians--and who can blame them? But I don't see them huffing and puffing about an invasion when people are so desperate they're setting out on non-seaworthy boats when they can't swim and there's a 10% risk of drowning.


He hasn't changed it because Big Piggy and Big Chicken need a few Hondurans to work 12 hour shifts and keep the economies in Blightedwoods, Mississippi and Guymon, America running for the banker, jewelry and the judge.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:


Xiled, if the Trump admin wants people to stop coming to the border, they need to change our asylum laws.

Building walls won't stop the flow of refugees--fleeing drug wars, poverty, whatever--as long as there's a faint hope they can gain asylum. And asking for asylum is a legal right we offer. We don't have to grant it. But if someone presents at the border and asks for it, we have to consider their case. That's the law.

So why hasn't the Trump Admin addressed that? I suspect it's because Trump wants the optics of too many people coming to the border to gin up lots of fear and loathing to help get him re-elected. Either that, or he's a policy ignoramus. Probably both.

I fully understand we can't take them all. But why aren't we also working with other nations to address the cause of the refugee crisis? Italy and Greece don't want any more Syrians--and who can blame them? But I don't see them huffing and puffing about an invasion when people are so desperate they're setting out on non-seaworthy boats when they can't swim and there's a 10% risk of drowning.


He hasn't changed it because Big Piggy and Big Chicken need a few Hondurans to work 12 hour shifts and keep the economies in Blightedwoods, Mississippi and Guymon, America running for the banker, jewelry and the judge.
I'm sure you're right.

But that sure undermines his rhetoric about the "invasion" and the right-wing talking point of the month.

So maybe Pirro, Limbaugh, Coulter & Co. can take the chicken plants and agribusinesses that are keepin' the lights on for the illegals to task instead of demonizing people trying to stay alive by presenting at the border asking for asylum?

And maybe Republicans ought to face the ugly littile truth about their immigration policy, which is, we're fine with illegal immigrants because they work cheap, but our rhetoric is really tough.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:


Xiled, if the Trump admin wants people to stop coming to the border, they need to change our asylum laws.

Building walls won't stop the flow of refugees--fleeing drug wars, poverty, whatever--as long as there's a faint hope they can gain asylum. And asking for asylum is a legal right we offer. We don't have to grant it. But if someone presents at the border and asks for it, we have to consider their case. That's the law.

So why hasn't the Trump Admin addressed that? I suspect it's because Trump wants the optics of too many people coming to the border to gin up lots of fear and loathing to help get him re-elected. Either that, or he's a policy ignoramus. Probably both.

I fully understand we can't take them all. But why aren't we also working with other nations to address the cause of the refugee crisis? Italy and Greece don't want any more Syrians--and who can blame them? But I don't see them huffing and puffing about an invasion when people are so desperate they're setting out on non-seaworthy boats when they can't swim and there's a 10% risk of drowning.


He hasn't changed it because Big Piggy and Big Chicken need a few Hondurans to work 12 hour shifts and keep the economies in Blightedwoods, Mississippi and Guymon, America running for the banker, jewelry and the judge.
I'm sure you're right.

But that sure undermines his rhetoric about the "invasion" and the right-wing talking point of the month.

So maybe Pirro, Limbaugh, Coulter & Co. can take the chicken plants and agribusinesses that are keepin' the lights on for the illegals to task instead of demonizing people trying to stay alive by presenting at the border asking for asylum?

And maybe Republicans ought to face the ugly littile truth about their immigration policy, which is, we're fine with illegal immigrants because they work cheap, but our rhetoric is really tough.


Both sides are a bit chicken ____ on getting it done. Mitch McConnell comes from Kentucky. He cannot upset rural business.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The system has been overwhelmed with an increase in meritless asylum claims. Sessions laid out the numbers when he was AG, but no one paid any attention. There was little risk for applicants as long as they were being released pending the disposition of their cases. Trump has been trying to remove some of the incentive for abuse. Democrats would focus exclusively on hiring more judges, but that doesn't solve the problem of people slipping through the cracks and staying once their claims are denied.

There's a difference between nativism and responsible border control. The Chinese Exclusion Act was nativist. Trump's policies, not so much.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:


Xiled, if the Trump admin wants people to stop coming to the border, they need to change our asylum laws.

Building walls won't stop the flow of refugees--fleeing drug wars, poverty, whatever--as long as there's a faint hope they can gain asylum. And asking for asylum is a legal right we offer. We don't have to grant it. But if someone presents at the border and asks for it, we have to consider their case. That's the law.

So why hasn't the Trump Admin addressed that? I suspect it's because Trump wants the optics of too many people coming to the border to gin up lots of fear and loathing to help get him re-elected. Either that, or he's a policy ignoramus. Probably both.

I fully understand we can't take them all. But why aren't we also working with other nations to address the cause of the refugee crisis? Italy and Greece don't want any more Syrians--and who can blame them? But I don't see them huffing and puffing about an invasion when people are so desperate they're setting out on non-seaworthy boats when they can't swim and there's a 10% risk of drowning.


He hasn't changed it because Big Piggy and Big Chicken need a few Hondurans to work 12 hour shifts and keep the economies in Blightedwoods, Mississippi and Guymon, America running for the banker, jewelry and the judge.
I'm sure you're right.

But that sure undermines his rhetoric about the "invasion" and the right-wing talking point of the month.

So maybe Pirro, Limbaugh, Coulter & Co. can take the chicken plants and agribusinesses that are keepin' the lights on for the illegals to task instead of demonizing people trying to stay alive by presenting at the border asking for asylum?

And maybe Republicans ought to face the ugly littile truth about their immigration policy, which is, we're fine with illegal immigrants because they work cheap, but our rhetoric is really tough.


Both sides are a bit chicken ____ on getting it done. Mitch McConnell comes from Kentucky. He cannot upset rural business.
We are not in a climate where Dems and Republcians are going to work togehter on immigration reform.

Trump's invasion rhetoric is only making that environment worse. But if ICE keeps raiding chicken plans in Mississippi, he may lose more votes than he gains. The people who own those plants and make money by selling that chicken to Purdue Farms are not Hispanic, and they're probably not Democrats, either.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:


Xiled, if the Trump admin wants people to stop coming to the border, they need to change our asylum laws.

Building walls won't stop the flow of refugees--fleeing drug wars, poverty, whatever--as long as there's a faint hope they can gain asylum. And asking for asylum is a legal right we offer. We don't have to grant it. But if someone presents at the border and asks for it, we have to consider their case. That's the law.

So why hasn't the Trump Admin addressed that? I suspect it's because Trump wants the optics of too many people coming to the border to gin up lots of fear and loathing to help get him re-elected. Either that, or he's a policy ignoramus. Probably both.

I fully understand we can't take them all. But why aren't we also working with other nations to address the cause of the refugee crisis? Italy and Greece don't want any more Syrians--and who can blame them? But I don't see them huffing and puffing about an invasion when people are so desperate they're setting out on non-seaworthy boats when they can't swim and there's a 10% risk of drowning.


He hasn't changed it because Big Piggy and Big Chicken need a few Hondurans to work 12 hour shifts and keep the economies in Blightedwoods, Mississippi and Guymon, America running for the banker, jewelry and the judge.
I'm sure you're right.

But that sure undermines his rhetoric about the "invasion" and the right-wing talking point of the month.

So maybe Pirro, Limbaugh, Coulter & Co. can take the chicken plants and agribusinesses that are keepin' the lights on for the illegals to task instead of demonizing people trying to stay alive by presenting at the border asking for asylum?

And maybe Republicans ought to face the ugly littile truth about their immigration policy, which is, we're fine with illegal immigrants because they work cheap, but our rhetoric is really tough.


Both sides are a bit chicken ____ on getting it done. Mitch McConnell comes from Kentucky. He cannot upset rural business.
We are not in a climate where Dems and Republcians are going to work togehter on immigration reform.

Trump's invasion rhetoric is only making that environment worse. But if ICE keeps raiding chicken plans in Mississippi, he may lose more votes than he gains. The people who own those plants and make money by selling that chicken to Purdue Farms are not Hispanic, and they're probably not Democrats, either.
The invasion rhetoric is mildly hyperbolic, at worst. It doesn't make reasoned debate impossible, unlike the constant cries of racism, fascism, etc.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:


Xiled, if the Trump admin wants people to stop coming to the border, they need to change our asylum laws.

Building walls won't stop the flow of refugees--fleeing drug wars, poverty, whatever--as long as there's a faint hope they can gain asylum. And asking for asylum is a legal right we offer. We don't have to grant it. But if someone presents at the border and asks for it, we have to consider their case. That's the law.

So why hasn't the Trump Admin addressed that? I suspect it's because Trump wants the optics of too many people coming to the border to gin up lots of fear and loathing to help get him re-elected. Either that, or he's a policy ignoramus. Probably both.

I fully understand we can't take them all. But why aren't we also working with other nations to address the cause of the refugee crisis? Italy and Greece don't want any more Syrians--and who can blame them? But I don't see them huffing and puffing about an invasion when people are so desperate they're setting out on non-seaworthy boats when they can't swim and there's a 10% risk of drowning.


He hasn't changed it because Big Piggy and Big Chicken need a few Hondurans to work 12 hour shifts and keep the economies in Blightedwoods, Mississippi and Guymon, America running for the banker, jewelry and the judge.
I'm sure you're right.

But that sure undermines his rhetoric about the "invasion" and the right-wing talking point of the month.

So maybe Pirro, Limbaugh, Coulter & Co. can take the chicken plants and agribusinesses that are keepin' the lights on for the illegals to task instead of demonizing people trying to stay alive by presenting at the border asking for asylum?

And maybe Republicans ought to face the ugly littile truth about their immigration policy, which is, we're fine with illegal immigrants because they work cheap, but our rhetoric is really tough.


Both sides are a bit chicken ____ on getting it done. Mitch McConnell comes from Kentucky. He cannot upset rural business.
We are not in a climate where Dems and Republcians are going to work togehter on immigration reform.

Trump's invasion rhetoric is only making that environment worse. But if ICE keeps raiding chicken plans in Mississippi, he may lose more votes than he gains. The people who own those plants and make money by selling that chicken to Purdue Farms are not Hispanic, and they're probably not Democrats, either.
The invasion rhetoric is mildly hyperbolic, at worst. It doesn't make reasoned debate impossible, unlike the constant cries of racism, fascism, etc.
It encouraged a kid to drive all the way from Dallas to El Paso to shoot Mexicans, Sam. Was that mildly hyperbolic?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As long as only Trump's words are condemned, you are ignoring a big part of the problem.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

As long as only Trump's words are condemned, you are ignoring a big part of the problem.
The invasion rhetoric isn't only coming from Trump. But he is POTUS and sets the tone.

Howling about an invasion when rquesting asylum is a right we grant is disingenuous. If Trump wants to stop the flow to the border, he needs to eliminate the right to request asylum.
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Kyle said:

Jinx 2 said:

Kyle said:


The president or no Republican opposes immigration. Just like there was no "Muslim ban." That's just cheap fake news designed to enrage the weak minded.


Are the people at the CATO Institute who remember Trump's calling for a Muslim ban and have tracked his performance on that goal "weak-minded"?

https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18

On December 7, 2015, President Trump called for a Muslim ban. This ban later turned into "extreme vetting" policies, whichaccording to Trumphad the same goal. Now nearing the 2-year mark of his administration, an accurate assessment of these policies is now possible. All the major categories of entries to the United Statesrefugees, immigrants, and visitorsare significantly down under the Trump administration for Muslims or applicants from Muslim majority countries.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1401/establish-ban-muslims-entering-us/

One of President Donald Trump's most controversial campaign promises was to establish a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Whether that was the intention of a series of executive orders after he took office is widely debated. But it is clear that the orders impeded the entry of Muslims from some countries, though not from all parts of the world.
About a week after taking office, Trump signed an executive order temporarily suspending immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. refugee program. He indefinitely stopped the entry of Syrian refugees. Courts blocked the order's implementation after states sued alleging it violated constitutional religious liberties.

Trump subsequently signed two more executive orders, each a revision of the previous one, in response to multiple lawsuits challenging their legality. Opponents of the orders said they amounted to a Muslim ban. The Trump administration argued they were not banning immigration based on religion, and were rather driven by national security concerns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/

Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

In a statement released by his campaign Monday afternoon, Trump included recent poll findings that he says show that a sizable segment of the Muslim population has "great hatred towards Americans."

"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump is quoted as saying in the statement. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.
Again with the lack of self-awareness. Your own post contradicts you:

"But it is clear that the orders impeded the entry of Muslims from some countries, though not from all parts of the world."

No one is disputing that the president supported limiting entry from countries with extremely high levels of terrorist support both private and state-supported. You do understand the difference, right?

The reason people get frustrated trying to discuss issues with you is because you're disingenuous.

If you show an executive order that would have banned all Muslims from entering the country, then I'll acknowledge I'm incorrect. Posting emotional hysteria from emotional hysteric sites is not helpful.
The CATO Institute is not typically emotionally hysterical, Kyle.

Trump called for a Muslim ban during his presidential campaign.

He tried to enact one soon after he was elected, using means his advisors thought might pass muster with the court.

The first two didn't, but he kept trying.

The facts that his initial 2 plans didn't succeed because it was obvious to federal judges that they were Muslim bans seems to have escaped you. Talk about disingenuous. A president states he wants a Muslim ban and then bans travelers from several Muslim majority countries and then tries to say that it's not a Muslim ban, it's a terrorist ban.... And you buy that?

Ultimately, SCOTUS allowed a partial ban on travelers/immigrants. That case, detailed here on on SCOTUSblog, another source that's clearly not hysterical, dealt with the third proposal his administration advanced. It passed 5/4.

Your snide and superior tone has looks even worse when you're just flat wrong. You do understand that all Musltims aren't terrorists? That many of the people "banned" were students, professors and other working professionals who lived and worked here or were married to American citizens? And you have observed that we're doing a damn good job of terrorizing ourselves with no help from Muslims, right? If we really wanted to stop terrorism in the U.S., we could start with making sure Joe Average can't get his grimy little hands on assault weapons and ammo by ordering it online.


So he wanted a "Muslim ban" which omitted 43 out of 49 Muslim countries?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:


Xiled, if the Trump admin wants people to stop coming to the border, they need to change our asylum laws.

Building walls won't stop the flow of refugees--fleeing drug wars, poverty, whatever--as long as there's a faint hope they can gain asylum. And asking for asylum is a legal right we offer. We don't have to grant it. But if someone presents at the border and asks for it, we have to consider their case. That's the law.

So why hasn't the Trump Admin addressed that? I suspect it's because Trump wants the optics of too many people coming to the border to gin up lots of fear and loathing to help get him re-elected. Either that, or he's a policy ignoramus. Probably both.

I fully understand we can't take them all. But why aren't we also working with other nations to address the cause of the refugee crisis? Italy and Greece don't want any more Syrians--and who can blame them? But I don't see them huffing and puffing about an invasion when people are so desperate they're setting out on non-seaworthy boats when they can't swim and there's a 10% risk of drowning.


He hasn't changed it because Big Piggy and Big Chicken need a few Hondurans to work 12 hour shifts and keep the economies in Blightedwoods, Mississippi and Guymon, America running for the banker, jewelry and the judge.
I'm sure you're right.

But that sure undermines his rhetoric about the "invasion" and the right-wing talking point of the month.

So maybe Pirro, Limbaugh, Coulter & Co. can take the chicken plants and agribusinesses that are keepin' the lights on for the illegals to task instead of demonizing people trying to stay alive by presenting at the border asking for asylum?

And maybe Republicans ought to face the ugly littile truth about their immigration policy, which is, we're fine with illegal immigrants because they work cheap, but our rhetoric is really tough.


Both sides are a bit chicken ____ on getting it done. Mitch McConnell comes from Kentucky. He cannot upset rural business.
We are not in a climate where Dems and Republcians are going to work togehter on immigration reform.

Trump's invasion rhetoric is only making that environment worse. But if ICE keeps raiding chicken plans in Mississippi, he may lose more votes than he gains. The people who own those plants and make money by selling that chicken to Purdue Farms are not Hispanic, and they're probably not Democrats, either.
The invasion rhetoric is mildly hyperbolic, at worst. It doesn't make reasoned debate impossible, unlike the constant cries of racism, fascism, etc.
It encouraged a kid to drive all the way from Dallas to El Paso to shoot Mexicans, Sam. Was that mildly hyperbolic?
So did Dr. Seuss.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

As long as only Trump's words are condemned, you are ignoring a big part of the problem.
The invasion rhetoric isn't only coming from Trump. But he is POTUS and sets the tone.

Howling about an invasion when rquesting asylum is a right we grant is disingenuous. If Trump wants to stop the flow to the border, he needs to eliminate the right to request asylum.
OK, maybe you need to go look up the statute on 'asylum'

"Because I want to come to the US" is not grounds for asylum. In fact, we are not obligated to give asylum to anyone, even if they meet the criteria.

But 99.99% of those seeking "asylum" do not qualify. Let them get in line with the many good people who become residents and citizens the right way.

It's not easy, but only a seriously immoral person would punish the law-abiding immigrants in order to let a wave of criminals go first, which is exactly what has been happening for the last year.
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:

xiledinok said:

Jinx 2 said:


Xiled, if the Trump admin wants people to stop coming to the border, they need to change our asylum laws.

Building walls won't stop the flow of refugees--fleeing drug wars, poverty, whatever--as long as there's a faint hope they can gain asylum. And asking for asylum is a legal right we offer. We don't have to grant it. But if someone presents at the border and asks for it, we have to consider their case. That's the law.

So why hasn't the Trump Admin addressed that? I suspect it's because Trump wants the optics of too many people coming to the border to gin up lots of fear and loathing to help get him re-elected. Either that, or he's a policy ignoramus. Probably both.

I fully understand we can't take them all. But why aren't we also working with other nations to address the cause of the refugee crisis? Italy and Greece don't want any more Syrians--and who can blame them? But I don't see them huffing and puffing about an invasion when people are so desperate they're setting out on non-seaworthy boats when they can't swim and there's a 10% risk of drowning.


He hasn't changed it because Big Piggy and Big Chicken need a few Hondurans to work 12 hour shifts and keep the economies in Blightedwoods, Mississippi and Guymon, America running for the banker, jewelry and the judge.
I'm sure you're right.

But that sure undermines his rhetoric about the "invasion" and the right-wing talking point of the month.

So maybe Pirro, Limbaugh, Coulter & Co. can take the chicken plants and agribusinesses that are keepin' the lights on for the illegals to task instead of demonizing people trying to stay alive by presenting at the border asking for asylum?

And maybe Republicans ought to face the ugly littile truth about their immigration policy, which is, we're fine with illegal immigrants because they work cheap, but our rhetoric is really tough.


Both sides are a bit chicken ____ on getting it done. Mitch McConnell comes from Kentucky. He cannot upset rural business.
We are not in a climate where Dems and Republcians are going to work togehter on immigration reform.

Trump's invasion rhetoric is only making that environment worse. But if ICE keeps raiding chicken plans in Mississippi, he may lose more votes than he gains. The people who own those plants and make money by selling that chicken to Purdue Farms are not Hispanic, and they're probably not Democrats, either.
The invasion rhetoric is mildly hyperbolic, at worst. It doesn't make reasoned debate impossible, unlike the constant cries of racism, fascism, etc.
It encouraged a kid to drive all the way from Dallas to El Paso to shoot Mexicans, Sam. Was that mildly hyperbolic?
I guess you did not read the manifesto. #shocking It does not fit the bias.

Again, show me one primary source - a policy or a speech - where the president proposed banning Muslims. Just one. Similarly, show me one primary source - a policy or a speech - where the president opposed immigration. Just one. I'll cheers to your being correct. Not hysterical hyperbole, a primary source.

When I talk about lack of self-awareness, it is pointing at this mythical world of bogeymen from which you constantly build straw men. You manufacture your own outrage.
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

As long as only Trump's words are condemned, you are ignoring a big part of the problem.
The invasion rhetoric isn't only coming from Trump. But he is POTUS and sets the tone.

Howling about an invasion when rquesting asylum is a right we grant is disingenuous. If Trump wants to stop the flow to the border, he needs to eliminate the right to request asylum.
What would you call tens of thousands of people forcibly and illegal entering the country?
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.