Seth wrote:
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.
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.
Seth wrote:
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?
br There has been talk that the hand (and funding... (
show quote)
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, voting, 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.)
Seth wrote:
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.
"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.
Seth wrote:
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 white supremacists.
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.
br Trump obviously sees what's going on and is st... (
show quote)
This depends on where you get your news.
Seth wrote:
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 voter in the country opens his or her checkbook and treats the rest of us to an expense we want no part of?
br This is all costing the U.S. taxpayer astronom... (
show quote)