September 6, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, TEW said: I think it’s pretty heartless to allow Americans to be murdered, raped, assaulted, robbed, etc. by foreigners. If someone has to die, it shouldn’t be the American in America at the hands of a non-American. I think it's pretty ignorant to act like foreigners represent a bigger criminal threat than native Americans.
September 6, 20232 yr Just now, JohnSnowsHair said: I think it's pretty ignorant to act like foreigners represent a bigger criminal threat than native Americans. Who said they did? That doesn’t change the fact that foreign invaders should be repelled with extreme prejudice.
September 6, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, TEW said: Who said they did? That doesn’t change the fact that foreign invaders should be repelled with extreme prejudice. they're seeking asylum. they're not invaders. yes, we know you hate immigrants and foreigners. thankfully your view is not popular.
September 6, 20232 yr 19 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: they're seeking asylum. they're not invaders. yes, we know you hate immigrants and foreigners. thankfully your view is not popular. That is the same idiotic POV that has people getting shot when they knock on someone's door. The gun wackjobs just want excuses to shoot people.
September 6, 20232 yr 32 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: they're seeking asylum. they're not invaders. yes, we know you hate immigrants and foreigners. thankfully your view is not popular. Actually people on both sides of the political spectrum through virtually all of american history agreed that immigration levels should either be lowered or at worst should remain consistent. It's a relatively knew phenomenon that sheetlibs now are in favor of massive waves of immigration, and that mostly started in 2016 because the tv told them to. That's why you can find clips that are only around 10-15 years old of politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama talking about border security that make them sound like "far right" republicans today.
September 6, 20232 yr 36 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: they're seeking asylum. they're not invaders. yes, we know you hate immigrants and foreigners. thankfully your view is not popular. TEW has a handy way of differentiating asylum seekers from illegal invaders.
September 6, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, Kz! said: Actually people on both sides of the political spectrum through virtually all of american history agreed that immigration levels should either be lowered or at worst should remain consistent. It's a relatively knew phenomenon that sheetlibs now are in favor of massive waves of immigration, and that mostly started in 2016 because the tv told them to. That's why you can find clips that are only around 10-15 years old of politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama talking about border security that make them sound like "far right" republicans today. Actually the stances on immigration haven't changed much and you're still a moron. The best bill that never quite got passed was the immigration bill of 2007, which incorporated a lot of earlier efforts but was ultimately killed off by idiots like you. It would have brought back guest worker programs, which would have reduced illegal immigration and visa overstays (history shows this but I know you're not a fan so you'll probably disagree) It would have done away with employer sponsorship and replaced it with a merit-based system around points which are earned by proficiency in english, education, job skills, etc. It would have limited immigration through a relative that gained US Citizenship to spouses and children. It would have added 20k border agents and hundreds of miles of fencing on the Mexican border. All of this wasn't enough for Republicans, who hate DREAMers enough that they refused the one thing Democrats wanted.
September 6, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Actually the stances on immigration haven't changed much and you're still a moron. The best bill that never quite got passed was the immigration bill of 2007, which incorporated a lot of earlier efforts but was ultimately killed off by idiots like you. It would have brought back guest worker programs, which would have reduced illegal immigration and visa overstays (history shows this but I know you're not a fan so you'll probably disagree) It would have done away with employer sponsorship and replaced it with a merit-based system around points which are earned by proficiency in english, education, job skills, etc. It would have limited immigration through a relative that gained US Citizenship to spouses and children. It would have added 20k border agents and hundreds of miles of fencing on the Mexican border. All of this wasn't enough for Republicans, who hate DREAMers enough that they refused the one thing Democrats wanted. The stances have changed dramatically if you look at actual polling data across the decades, idiot. It's a very recent phenomenon that sheetlibs support massive amounts of both illegal and legal immigration. But that's what you typically would expect from the useful idiots. I like how you just casually throw in that physical barriers along the border are actually good and can curb illegal border crossings. Careful, that's not what the TV says now.
September 6, 20232 yr 11 minutes ago, Kz! said: The stances have changed dramatically if you look at actual polling data across the decades, idiot. It's a very recent phenomenon that sheetlibs support massive amounts of both illegal and legal immigration. But that's what you typically would expect from the useful idiots. I like how you just casually throw in that physical barriers along the border are actually good and can curb illegal border crossings. Careful, that's not what the TV says now. no, you brainless moron, physical barriers have always been supported by people in both parties for a long time. what was opposed was the idiotic idea of a wall spanning the entirety of the border. because it is a stupid ass way to "secure" the border. walls are not effective in many places. they are not impassible barriers, they are momentary inconveniences in many places. what was supported was more border patrol agents and deployment of smarter technology that would be able to better monitor movement in different sectors and bring border security to where they're most needed. but this wasn't enough of a "big beautiful wall" for morons. and actual polling supports that democrats have long been more sympathetic to those seeking to immigrate or fleeing bad situations and requesting asylum. what has changed is that since Trump the immigrant has become a top enemy of the right in a way it wasn't during GWB's years for example. at the time there were enough sane members of the Republican party to at least not jump headlong into the xenophobic world the right now finds itself in. goddamn you're an idiot.
September 6, 20232 yr 10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: no, you brainless moron, physical barriers have always been supported by people in both parties for a long time. what was opposed was the idiotic idea of a wall spanning the entirety of the border. because it is a stupid ass way to "secure" the border. walls are not effective in many places. they are not impassible barriers, they are momentary inconveniences in many places. what was supported was more border patrol agents and deployment of smarter technology that would be able to better monitor movement in different sectors and bring border security to where they're most needed. but this wasn't enough of a "big beautiful wall" for morons. and actual polling supports that democrats have long been more sympathetic to those seeking to immigrate or fleeing bad situations and requesting asylum. what has changed is that since Trump the immigrant has become a top enemy of the right in a way it wasn't during GWB's years for example. at the time there were enough sane members of the Republican party to at least not jump headlong into the xenophobic world the right now finds itself in. goddamn you're an idiot. And Trump's plan was always a physical barrier in addition to the things you listed, idiot. Polling shows that both dems and repubs both overwhelmingly supported either leaving immigration levels the same or reducing them for decades. Obviously dem politicians have incentivized illegal immigration because they know they will eventually become citizens or at least have children that will be citizens who will consistently vote dem for wealth redistribution/free handouts which dems will always provide more of. Even still, dem voters only just recently began supporting waves of immigration and the change mostly centers around orange man bad/the tv told them it was good. Again, you guys are useful idiots who now believe unfettered migration from third world countries is a good thing.
September 6, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, TEW said: He’s smarter than you are. Does that hurt? No he's not, and you know that.
September 6, 20232 yr 17 minutes ago, vikas83 said: No he's not, and you know that. all things considered, does he ?
September 6, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, TEW said: You don’t think deploying the military to shoot every illegal alien who crossed the border would deter illegal aliens from crossing the border? Chopping off one of your fingers every time you make a retarded post in CVON might deter you from doing so as well, but what do either have to do with the price of tea in China?
September 6, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said: Deploying the military to shoot every accountant who fudges the books would also deter people from committing fraud. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. This isn’t why the IRS is packing heat now?
September 6, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: and actual polling supports that democrats have long been more sympathetic to those seeking to immigrate or fleeing bad situations and requesting asylum. what has changed is that since Trump the immigrant has become a top enemy of the right in a way it wasn't during GWB's years for example. at the time there were enough sane members of the Republican party to at least not jump headlong into the xenophobic world the right now finds itself in. goddamn you're an idiot. This is whats changed, you all started calling everyone "asylum seekers" like no one would notice. Theyre not illegal immigrants crossing multiple countries to get here, theyre just in bad situations but very selective about which "asylum" they seek. 😉
September 6, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, TEW said: Who said they did? That doesn’t change the fact that foreign invaders should be repelled with extreme prejudice. You, and your ilk, are the biggest bunch of panty wringing whiners in history.
September 6, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: @mr_hunt...i couldn't find a GOT walk of "shanda" meme ...you have one of dem joints in your catalogue ?
September 7, 20232 yr Again, sheetlibs can be convinced that illegal immigration is a good thing because the tv tells them, but it's mostly because their lives aren't directly affected by the issues they cause insulated in whatever overwhelmingly white suburb they live in. When they actually end up squatting in droves in your community, that changes quickly:
September 7, 20232 yr 23 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I think it's pretty ignorant to act like foreigners represent a bigger criminal threat than native Americans.
September 7, 20232 yr On 9/6/2023 at 9:35 AM, JohnSnowsHair said: I think it's pretty ignorant to act like foreigners represent a bigger criminal threat than native Americans. You miss the point. Its citizens vs both here. Clearly an additive risk, not replacement risk
September 7, 20232 yr Both parties have failed us. The logical conclusion is that neither party truly wants a solution. It's too politically advantageous for them to keep the problem. We all lose.
September 7, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, ToastJenkins said: You miss the point. Its citizens vs both here. Clearly an additive risk, not replacement risk If crime among immigrants is less than the native born population then risk of being a victim of crime is lessened by the introduction of more immigrants. Crime rates are more important than total nominal acts of crime if the metric is the likelihood of being the victim of a crime. Which for most people is the primary concern.
September 7, 20232 yr 16 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: If crime among immigrants is less than the native born population then risk of being a victim of crime is lessened by the introduction of more immigrants. Crime rates are more important than total nominal acts of crime if the metric is the likelihood of being the victim of a crime. Which for most people is the primary concern. No again its both not a dilution given their economic status, an inverse correlation for crime seems highly illogical and unlikely
Create an account or sign in to comment