Seth

LOL... I've been called many things, but not a "gem," but thanks. 😁

The gruesome twosome, who didn't even refer to the country as Israel but as "Palestine," had also stated that they had no intention of meeting with any Israeli officials, only with "human rights" orgs, which any thinking human being would know means anti-Israel groups.

It's good to see the Israeli government is showing these too-big-for-their-britches pro-jihadi, anti-Israel/anti-America "U.S. congresswomen" just how little they mean in the greater scheme of things.

The fact that they are even where they are in politics demonstrates either highly irresponsible e*****rates in their respective districts or a high concentration of Islamists, the very type of people whose very sensibilities are contrary to the liberties defined in the U.S. Constitution and who are unlikely, now or ever, to truly assimilate into our society.

Those kinds of people are not here to assimilate, however, they're here to add to the same sort of gradual demographic rebalancing they have been successfully pulling off in Europe.

JohnCorrespondent

The letter & spirit of asylum law is not being respected by this Administration.


I don't doubt that he would cite such things, but you'd have to find a better source than that if you wanted to convince me of much of anything.


This I can believe, because I know judges do a lot of strange things, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and probably often in wrongly-influenced judgement.

Seth

Of course, this "asylum" rush we've been seeing hasn't had anything to do with escaping political persecution, which is the purpose of granting "asylum," and everything to do with the "goodies" available in sanctuary cities, which are the Democrats' way of acquiring political power without having to do anything of benefit to Americans -- there was a time when immigrants who came to America did so without benefit of any safety nets -- came here, earned their keep, so to speak, and assimilated, up to and including prioritizing learning English, adopting our customs and respecting our laws.

Today, none of the above matters to Democrats, or, for that matter, to all too many immigrants.

Do you think, for example, that anyone but a complete moron is going to believe that the Dems fought inclusion of citizenship status on the census because they were morally concerned about the immigrants in question, when the t***h is that they merely wanted to pad their population numbers in order to sleaze more representation in government?

Lastly, these "caravans" were and are organized by the same g*******ts who fight for continued "refugee" proliferation in EU countries, to dilute their cultures and alter the demographics, bleaching out the characters that make respective countries unique.

Ann Coulter put it rather succinctly in an interview I watched on Scandinavian TV, where she said, "When I go to Sweden, I want to eat fish and listen to Abba. When I go to Italy, I want to eat pasta..."

JohnCorrespondent

[quote=Seth]Of course, this "asylum" rush we've been seeing hasn't had anything to do with escaping political persecution, which is the purpose of granting "asylum," and everything to do with the "goodies" available in sanctuary cities,
[...]
/[quote]

"Of course"?! You, and Trump, and supporters of Trump's position about asylum, know these things "of course" without the need for asylum hearings.

How can I describe that without being offensive?

The reason the law provides for "hearings" and "evaluations" (in asylum cases and more generally) is the assumption that we _don't_ know until there's a fair hearing.

I don't have any direct experience of being an asylum requester; but I do have direct experience of what happens when people assume they know things without a fair hearing. (And it isn't good.)

Enough, for one reply post (I won't try to reply to anything else in _that_ reply post (for now; possibly later).)

Seth

[quote=JohnCorrespondent][quote=Seth]Of course, this "asylum" rush we've been seeing hasn't had anything to do with escaping political persecution, which is the purpose of granting "asylum," and everything to do with the "goodies" available in sanctuary cities,
[...]
/

The countries these hordes come from are poor, not politically oppressive -- just corrupt and economically incompetent.

The message you folks put out is that we should just keep 'em piling in across the border, millions, then tens and hundreds of millions, right?

Draw the line nowhere? Come one, come all?

trucksterbud

Ya, HALLELUJAH....!!!!

JohnCorrespondent

I can agree on some details: Yes: I believe those countries are poor. (But I also believe they're politically oppressive, but that's a more complicated topic.) Yes, there's corruption (but that's not saying much (because there's corruption here and most places, too -- and there's complication in that topic also). You have a logic that there can be too many people coming (though it may be a facile logic, too oversimple).

No matter what your logic, no matter how much you actually know, I still say that we would have to assume you don't know the worth of an asylum case(s) until it gets a fair hearing. (Or fair "evaluation", or wh**ever it's called in asylum law.) _Or_, we could change asylum law (not that I'm recommending we do).

Now for the sake of argument, as an extreme example, let's suppose that all the world's population of non-U.S. people (seven billion or so people) were lined up on our borders requesting asylum. In the example, I'll be the president. I might declare a national emergency. Unlike Trump, I would not scorn and insult the asylum seekers. And I would not say (as he does carelessly (and falsely)) that they are our worst violent criminals and that it's an "invasion" nor any of the other inflammatory things he's said. I'd declare that it's a national emergency _that our present system of evaluating or accepting or managing asylum requesters is overwhelmed_. I would consult with advisors and come up with a triage system and a way to group the asylum requests so that they could summarize their asylum requests. I might _also_ deploy troops along the border. All that would be just a start.

I would use "national emergency" resources to do some good.

Supposing we _couldn't_ do much good; that's still no reason to disparage, out of hand, all those people.

You might say that the U.S. cannot handle that many people (7 billion in the example); and I might agree with that (though there are still possibilities of thinking outside the box, or paradigm shifts -- such as the possibility of aiding people on places outside of U.S. soil). In this example, there is still no reason to scorn, insult, nor stir up hatred about the people. That would just make the situation worse.

The present actual situation is easier. If a U.S. president chooses to declare a national emergency about the asylum seekers that are currently coming to our southern border, that president should be talking about how the asylum requests are going to be evaluated. The resources available for a national emergency should go in large part toward evaluating asylum requests. Trump doesn't even show this as even a _part_ of his concept of a national emergency about asylum requesters.

Trump's portrayal of the situation is unjustified and he's just making the situation worse.

Not only does Trump exhibit his own prejudice (prejudice: by which I mean judging _before_ or _without_ a fair hearing), he encourages millions of Americans to be similarly prejudiced.

I understand why we have police and soldiers and weapons; sometimes they are needed; and sometimes they have to k**l. Trump's deployment of force is not credible (as a right thing to do), and is more dangerous than it needs to be, because of the way he shows contempt for asylum requesters and neglect for asylum law.

Seth

You're oversimplifying things to some extent.

One, there has been footage linked here in the past of organizers actually handing out money and arranging these caravans prior to their departures from source countries.

Many of these "tired, poor" refugees are arriving looking well cared for, well dressed and equipped with smart phones.

There has been talk that the hand (and funding) of George Soros has been involved, much as he has been involved in the EU's refugee situation as a way to weaken western nations through their economies and through over-multiculturalization -- the Tower of Babel effect, if you will. Millions of nonassimilated foreigners saturating our population at once, and right at the time our economy, after years of stagnation, is finally beginning to boom -- a way of depressing this robust economy to keep it from realizing its true potential?

Unlike many of us, you don't seem to subscribe to the reality that there are swamp critters inside and outside the U.N. whose goal is one world government and who view America as we now are as the only obstacle they face in the scheme of things, among them Soros. He has admitted as much in interviews, as brazenly as you please.

Trump obviously sees what's going on and is striving to prevent it.

As for his statements about rapists, gang bangers and criminals, once again the left has intentionally taken his remarks out of context, taking his references to a few and turning them into blanket statements, just as they did with his references to w***e s*********ts.

Further, even international law mandates that "refugees" accept asylum from the first country they come to -- Mexico offered them that, but they insist on coming to America. Has it occurred to you that this is because they weren't so much leaving their countries as coming here?

Also, they are being briefed on what to say at interviews to game the system, many couples renting children to appear as families and when they are turned loose in America with hearing dates, few show up.

This is all costing the U.S. taxpayer astronomical amounts of money that adds significantly to the deficit that the Democrats are suddenly so concerned about (they weren't all that concerned when Obama was driving it up by the trillions, but now that Trump is POTUS it seems to be an "issue"), and while most Americans are totally tired of the whole debacle and want it stopped, the Democrats do everything in their power to attract every refugee and border jumper they can with sanctuary cities, welfare, free healthcare, etc.

I have an idea: how about instead of all Americans footing the bill, every Democrat v**er in the country opens his or her checkbook and treats the rest of us to an expense we want no part of?

DM

Well said, Seth. I admire your comments.

JohnCorrespondent

Some (maybe all) of the details you find significant are subject to the asylum request evaluation process.

If after trekking hundreds of miles on foot (some don't, probably most do), with children, to save them from violence at home; then waiting patiently in the mud at the U.S. border for an asylum request hearing, then waiting less and less patiently as it becomes more evident that the U.S. Administration is just trying to make the process as difficult as possible, they would satisfy you better if they look poorly cared for, poorly dressed, and with no way to communicate, if they aren't dead yet. Those who aren't doing so well probably don't make it to where you see or hear them.

You did bring up a point I'm not familiar with. You said that international asylum law says that asylum seekers have to take asylum in the first (or nearest?) country that offers it; and you said Mexico offered it. If all that's true then I might have to concede to that particular point.


That's not how I think.

Rather than be concerned about a Tower of Babel, I see the problem of silos of ignorance.

You and Trump are concerned about the survival and prosperity of an American culture.

Of course all of us Americans are concerned about the survival and prosperity of an American culture, but not all about the same exact culture, and not all with the same emphasis and priority.

I want survival and happiness for my family. I want a clear conscience.

When I make decisions (such as saving, spending, v****g, moving, attending church, or discussing politics) of course I put a very high priority on my family's survival _when I think it's endangered_. I'm in middle-class America and during recent history we have not been endangered much (except for the possibility of someone setting off nuclear war by mistake -- we come close to that occasionally). Now with the Trump administration there are a few additional threats, becoming greater threats than before, to our children's existence, prosperity, and/or happiness: runaway pollution and what that will do to the climate, war from countries that finally decide they have to stop our CIA and other parts of U.S. government from meddling in their countries, etc.

You suggest that over-multiculturalization is a hazard; and, that we should be concerned about our economy reaching its full potential.

I'm more concerned with pollution, needless antagonism with other countries, and bigotry. Those are problems which threaten not only the futures of my family members but even the futures of all people in America and worldwide.

(I looked up the word to verify meaning: bigot: A person of strong conviction or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him.)



"One world government" -- I haven't thought much about it because (a) it may not be a _problem_ (any worse than the problems of _not_ having a world government) and (b) the people who seem alarmed by the idea have failed to show convincingly _what_ they think such a government would be and _what_ they find _wrong_ with it. They stop at the phrase "one world government" as if everybody will know exactly what they mean and will know why everyone should be alarmed about it. But it's such a vague phrase that it doesn't mean much; it's like a catch-phrase or brand name that some group has loaded with arbitrary meaning.

International treaties: that's one form which might be part of a "one world government".

"Two-world government": a situation in which part of the world has its set of international treaties among its members, while the rest of the world has another set of international treaties among _its_ members.

"Five-hundred-seventy-umpteen-world government": a situation in which every little bantu-stan, banana republic, or self-styled empire (the U.S. included) disdains cooperation with any other and doesn't know much about any other.

This depends on where you get your news.

DM

Gosh, I have learned so much from all of you. I just discovered I AM A BIGOT. I am pretty strong in
my convictions...NEVER considered that I was prejudiced but in matters of religion am pretty darn strong...
want a strong belief, conviction of a Creator and all this garbage of g****r stuff is only to stab at
people who do have strong convictions...and GOD CREATED MAN AND WOMAN...PERIOD. Owned
business, hired black people who were VERY reliable, left them with our business and with my politics
can't get much more conservative than someone from a Bible Belt that detests protests, h**e in any
kind of shape or form and want peaceful life for all and abilities for all to earn a good living and
provide for their families...also, a gov't that does not hand out lots of things not earned. Darn...
I am a bigot!

Seth

Look at the EU, a continental government that is now beginning to unravel because some of the member countries are tiring of their sovereignty and to large extent their very cultures being infringed upon at the whims of two or three of their more powerful members.

I don't know about you, but I prefer that my country be independent to make its own decisions based on its own perceived needs rather than have some bureaucrats someplace else make our policies for us.

JohnCorrespondent

"unravel" ... "because" ... "whims" ... Supposing that, it still doesn't say much about the "one world government" concept (wh**ever that is). I get that you're saying the European Union is having problems and you'd like to avoid a "one world government" that might have similar problems.

The phrase "one world government" hasn't been defined, and I wasn't the one who first brought it up here.

So I'll just continue with the vague general meaning of "one world government" however it suits me to interpret the phrase.

We've had some kind of "one world government" for a long time; the right question is "what kind of one world government would we want more, and what kind would we want less?" When Columbus came to the western hemisphere and began the exploitation, and the claim (by European nations) to ownership, of parts of the "New World", that was one kind of "one world government" and it was horrible.

And yet it is inevitable and right that there be some mingling of Europeans and native Americans; travel across the ocean would and should eventually happen. There are better and worse ways to go about that mingling.

Another angle on what you wrote is to consider whether the United States should disband and just become smaller states.

The United States government at its creation had some good ideas. If we can identify and understand those good ideas (and separate them from the ideas which aren't so good), we might continue to progress.

If we can allow (not force) other people to pursue their own good ideas, then that would be world progress; and, perhaps incidental to the progress, there might arise some form of good "one world government" (much better than the current "one world government" that already exists).

Seth

You don't seem to be able to put two factors together to reach an inevitable conclusion.

The EU is a smaller sample of what a one-world government would start out as: a number of different countries with differing histories, cultures and regional mindsets combined under what amounts to a central government, what once were national (federal) governments relegated, essentially, to the role of governor's and state legislatures. Essentially, what is the continental version of the very thing Article 1 of our Constitution was drafted to protect our individual states and the citizens within against.

Complicating things is the massive influx of "refugees," most not assimilating, saturating each country's population to alter the demographics against the tide of that country's particular culture, codes of morality and customs as they breed overbearing m**************m.

Between the EU's central government, which cannot "rule" with all the various member countries' individual character factored in at one time and this m**************m, the essence of each of these countries being bleached out a necessity if they are to fall under more "locked-in" central authority.

In addition, the g*******t leaning swamp creatures of the EU are in a position to manipulate the individual economies and other elements of life in these member nations, the end of which can only be pretty grim.

The g*******t ambitions of the deep staters in individual member countries, the EU and the U.N. will not stop there, of course -- they want the entire world under the same central governing body.

The logical way of doing this is to install a network of socialist governments, tightly controlled and more easily managed as subdivisions of that single governing body.

The United States is the lynchpin -- we have to be brought to heel because our constitution and the liberties granted therein are not compatible with the kind of "new world order" these g*******ts are looking to subject us to.

The limitless bombardment of m**************m, the sanctuary cities, the caravans amassed along our southern border, the revisionist history, identity politics and "social justice" the intensive immigration from source countries whose politics, cultures, sensibilities, religious beliefs and customs have nothing in common with ours, the Obama implementations of the Paris Accords that brutally weakened our recovery from the last recession, the d******eness now ingrained within our population and the push toward socialism can all be laid at the doorstep of the Democratic Party, and to deny this would be a blatant lie.

All these factors are desirable to those with g*******t ambitions as they weaken America in the various ways necessary to eventually absorb America into the rest of their intended world government.

You can "justify" one or another of the "fundamental t***sformations" the Democrats are trying to force on us, but the sum total of all of them equals a socialist totalitarian government, the perfect fit as an element of a central world governing body.

Thanks, but no thanks.

JohnCorrespondent

Coming immediately after my post, in which the word "bigot" appears, I assume your post has something to do with mine. I included a definition of the word.

The U.S. has a long history in which the word "bigotry" has often been used, and most people would agree that something like bigotry has sometimes occurred in U.S. history, although maybe they don't all use exactly the same words to describe what happened, and some of them don't use the word "bigotry" but they know what happened was something like that definition.

The definition I copied is from the only dictionary I have in the house: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, copyright 1969. More fully it says: "bigot: n. A person of strong conviction or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him. [French, from Old French bigot, a pejorative term for the Normans.]"

You don't necessarily have to assume it as a label of yourself, merely because you have strong convictions. The definition in that dictionary is a little bit loose, and depends on the meanings of "intolerant" and "differ". If someone camps in your yard and claims he needs to persecute you because of his religion, then you would be right to be intolerant of that, whether anyone calls you a bigot or not.

I have friends who have strong religious convictions (some Christians, some Unitarian Universalists, and in the past also a few Muslims); and I think 2 or 3 of the Christians might be what I'd call bigots some of the time on some subjects, though I have not told them that. At least one person in my life probably thinks I'm a bigot, and I've been trying hard to be unbigoted.

I don't consider myself religious; but I can see that some people who are strong in their religions do very well in the world and are good people. Even so, I might think some of those good people are bigots in some ways and might be doing some harm in the world, even if more often they do good in the world. If they were to start a needless war then I might be tempted to call them bigots. From what I've heard (from and about) and read (about) President Donald Trump, I feel close to thinking he's a bigot because, in my view, he acts in a way I think a bigot would act, and it isn't good, and when a President does it, it might have particularly dangerous effects.

I disagree with the position you describe as "conviction of a Creator and all this garbage of g****r stuff is only to stab at people who do have strong convictions...and God created man and woman...period".

Before you wrote that, this thread we're in was not much about "g****r". I did mention the word earlier but I think that was nonconsequential.