Fentanyl Is Smuggled for U.S. Citizens By U.S. Citizens, Not Asylum Seekers

It's still a handy way to make people clamor for government to let them trade liberty for security.

Which is what Ron Paul said.

It's already working.

His warning is worth heeding.

There must be a way to solve this problem without winding up deserving neither security nor liberty.

Yes, we could do what Paul ran on in 2008 and 2012.

Bring the troops home and guard OUR border.

It's still a handy way to make people clamor for government to let them trade liberty for security.

Is liberty defined by standing down and allowing a Marxist revolution to succeed in overthrowing the republic?

A revolution, that, once consolidated, will kill or imprison every single person like you or me?
 
Last edited:
What about the ones who are asylum seekers?

Or does such a thing just not exist in your world?

There is no universal right to asylum.

We have our own problems.

They can fuck off back to wherever they came from AFAIC.

El Salvador was one of the most violent, dangerous shitholes in the world.

Many of those seeking "asylum" came from there.

In just a matter of a few years, Bukale has turned that nation around.

Send them all back, and let them re-build their own country.
 
Last edited:
What about the ones who are asylum seekers?

Or does such a thing just not exist in your world?

Well, I think the best thing we can do for them is to stop organizations like Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross from marching vast hordes our direction, so the citizenry isn't ready to shoot every brown person they see on sight.

Might benefit brown citizens, too, like the ones whose ancestors date back before the Mayflower.
 
That doesn't answer the question.

You asked me:

What about the ones who are asylum seekers?

Or does such a thing just not exist in your world?

I answered:

They can fuck off back to wherever they came from AFAIC.

And,

There is no universal right to asylum.

In what comic clown world are those not clear and concise answers to the questions you asked?
 
What about the ones who are asylum seekers?

Or does such a thing just not exist in your world?

What about them? Who defines what an asylum seeker is? I think it's the UN refugee whatever agency. Should the US be subject to anything the UN says? It used to be (only recently) that seeking asylum was for those seeking refuge from political persecution where they would be killed; escaping war that threatened their lives; natural disasters that make their homes unlivable. There was a "first safe country" rule, meaning the first safe country from where they were escaping was to offer TEMPORARY refuge - until the war stopped, natural disaster was cleaned up or the dangerous political situation resolved. The US has people coming from all over the world. Whatever their situation, they could go to the next nearest safe country. Marxists and the UN have thrown all of their own rules out the window to facilitate the destruction of the US.
 
My home is more than my house.

But yes, they are.

My little town up the woods just had it's first armed home invasion a few months back.

The suspects were two Guatemalan invaders.


Obama: "If you see something say something".


What if the two persons were white? Rather than stick your nose in other people's business, in another town no less, it should be up to the property owner to defend/protect his or hers.

Just sayin'.

See? I didn't even ask what the episode was about, because it's none of my business. But, a neighborhood watch is fine, if everybody agrees to it.
 
What about them? Who defines what an asylum seeker is?

I really don't care whose definition you want to use. But in order to say that person X is not an asylum seeker but an invader, you have to have a definition of both of those words. Likewise if you are going to say that 100% of the people who enter this country from elsewhere are invaders and 0% are asylum seekers.
 
What about them? Who defines what an asylum seeker is? I think it's the UN refugee whatever agency. Should the US be subject to anything the UN says? It used to be (only recently) that seeking asylum was for those seeking refuge from political persecution where they would be killed; escaping war that threatened their lives; natural disasters that make their homes unlivable. There was a "first safe country" rule, meaning the first safe country from where they were escaping was to offer TEMPORARY refuge - until the war stopped, natural disaster was cleaned up or the dangerous political situation resolved. The US has people coming from all over the world. Whatever their situation, they could go to the next nearest safe country. Marxists and the UN have thrown all of their own rules out the window to facilitate the destruction of the US.


Don't shift the blame. The 'Merikan People have abandoned Private Property Rights, abandoned the Bill of Right's, abandoned the freedom to travel freely, and "don't mind paying their taxes". All the globalists are doing is taking advantage of their stoopidity.
 
You asked me:



I answered:

They can fuck off back to wherever they came from AFAIC.

And,

There is no universal right to asylum.

In what comic clown world are those not clear and concise answers to the questions you asked?

Stop playing stupid. Go back to the post you made that I asked that question in reference to.
 
None of us own property.

Here we have it, friends.

This is what is at the bottom of the belief system of AF and his ilk. They are communists.

What's his is his. What's yours is also his. And don't you dare let people he doesn't approve of onto his property that he's letting you live on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
Back
Top