Invasion USA

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it GW Bush who made it legal for the government to give money to these "religious" entities - back when he was all gung ho on impressing evangelicals before an election... and pretending that he was one of them? Is that how this plot to have taxpayers cover the costs of importing illegal aliens was really ramped up?

I seem to recall arguments from incredulous democrats back then, about the need to maintain a "separation between church and state" but, outwardly "conservatives" appeared to not really care. Much later - after it was too late - evangelicals were expressing shocked disappointment when they realized there would be no benefit for them, they'd been used and lied to by Bush, and it was all BS.

Is that how all these illegal alien welcome centers came to be?

The modern wave started 30 years ago, under Clinton with the settling of the Somalian diaspora in Minnesota, fallout from yet another Somalian civil war and famine, using "VLOGS" or "volunteer orgs".

The system found that this was a perfect way to accomplish the goal of displacement and replacement of the existing US population, and it was right around that you started hearing about the "Great Replacement", Pat Buchanan wrote five books about it. Of course, if you questioned it, you were called a Nazi and a racist and a bigot and xenophobe and a conspiracy theorist, even as it was being written about and promoted as the way of the future.

Every administration since then has continued to support or grow these "NGOs" as way in which to funnel taxpayer money into the invasion efforts.

GOP lawmakers once praised Catholic Charities. Now they want to defund the group.
Some Republicans don’t like the work of Catholic Charities and other faith-based groups helping migrants at the U.S. border
By Jack Jenkins
July 28, 2023
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it GW Bush who made it legal for the government to give money to these "religious" entities - back when he was all gung ho on impressing evangelicals before an election... and pretending that he was one of them? Is that how this plot to have taxpayers cover the costs of importing illegal aliens was really ramped up?

I seem to recall arguments from incredulous democrats back then, about the need to maintain a "separation between church and state" but, outwardly "conservatives" appeared to not really care. Much later - after it was too late - evangelicals were expressing shocked disappointment when they realized there would be no benefit for them, they'd been used and lied to by Bush, and it was all BS.

Is that how all these illegal alien welcome centers came to be?

I do remember that and it was sold as "public-private partnership". Democraps only opposed it because it was churches (and Bush).

The modern wave started 30 years ago, under Clinton with the settling of the Somalian diaspora in Minnesota, fallout from yet another Somalian civil war and famine, using "VLOGS" or "volunteer orgs".

The system found that this was a perfect way to accomplish the goal of displacement and replacement of the existing US population, and it was right around that you started hearing about the "Great Replacement", Pat Buchanan wrote five books about it. Of course, if you questioned it, you were called a Nazi and a racist and a bigot and xenophobe and a conspiracy theorist, even as it was being written about and promoted as the way of the future.

Every administration since then has continued to support or grow these "NGOs" as way in which to funnel taxpayer money into the invasion efforts.

GOP lawmakers once praised Catholic Charities. Now they want to defund the group.
Some Republicans don’t like the work of Catholic Charities and other faith-based groups helping migrants at the U.S. border
By Jack Jenkins
July 28, 2023

The Clinton State Dept also shipped in a lot of other Muslims, like Iraqis and Bosnians. The US bombs someplace and then moves the people here. Here are some stats on Iraqis:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iraqi-immigrants-united-states-0

*Correction: It was Bush 41, Mr New World Order, who began this even before Clinton
 
Last edited:
The modern wave started 30 years ago, under Clinton with the settling of the Somalian diaspora in Minnesota, fallout from yet another Somalian civil war and famine, using "VLOGS" or "volunteer orgs".

The system found that this was a perfect way to accomplish the goal of displacement and replacement of the existing US population, and it was right around that you started hearing about the "Great Replacement", Pat Buchanan wrote five books about it. Of course, if you questioned it, you were called a Nazi and a racist and a bigot and xenophobe and a conspiracy theorist, even as it was being written about and promoted as the way of the future.

Every administration since then has continued to support or grow these "NGOs" as way in which to funnel taxpayer money into the invasion efforts.


America’s Border Wall Is Bipartisan
.
.
But new fences are not a reversal of the Democratic Party’s agenda. They are part of an extensive history of both Democrats and Republicans selling Americans on the idea that they can stop border-crossings by simply starting a new program or building a big fence. Politicians from both parties have consistently attempted to “close the border,” as if doing so is actually possible, let alone desirable. Biden is not continuing construction on Trump’s border wall; he is continuing to build America’s border wall.

The first border fences built along the U.S.-Mexico border to curb immigration from Mexico began in earnest under Democrats Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. After building fences for decades to stop animals, the federal government shifted its focus when people began migrating in significant numbers from south to north in the 1940s and 1950s.
.
.
To fill labor gaps left by World War II, the nations agreed to a guest worker program, known as the Bracero Program. Not everyone qualified to participate, though, so thousands began migrating independently.
.
.
The Bracero Program ended in 1964, and a year later, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act which, for the first time, placed a cap on the number of people who could immigrate to the U.S. from Western Hemisphere countries like Mexico. This shift in regulation directed greater attention to the border.

Facing economic distress and American angst with rising tides of labor migrations from Mexico, Democrat Jimmy Carter replaced the fence Nixon had cut with a bigger, stronger fence in 1979. A year before it went up, its design stirred controversy when the contractor stated it would “sever the toes” of anyone who dared to breach it. After public outcry, Carter’s administration redesigned the fence to be plain, but tightly woven, wire mesh topped with barbed wire. Even if that fence did not sever toes, it did tear through Pat Nixon’s bi-nationally spirited park.

Republican Ronald Reagan also closed the border for a few weeks in 1985, repeating Operation Intercept. Despite his idea that he could close the border at his whim, Reagan, like First Lady Nixon, demonstrated hesitation about actual border fences. In a 1980 debate with future President George H.W. Bush, Reagan had said, “Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit and then while they’re working and earning here they pay taxes here.”

Reagan later signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The law provided legalization to over two million undocumented immigrants who had been working in the United States, increased the legal culpability for employers who hired undocumented people, and provided funding for more Border Patrol agents. Although Reagan did not build fences, his administration did maintain the ones that existed, and he provided funds to increase border surveillance, as did George H.W. Bush.

In the 1990s intense xenophobia and public debate about unauthorized immigration escalated in the United States, prompting both parties to move toward physically securing the border. Democrat Bill Clinton’s policies would not just tear through Pat Nixon’s park, they would effectively destroy it. In 1993 and 1994, Clinton launched three separate border operations: Operation Hold the Line in Texas, Operation Safeguard in Arizona, and Operation Gatekeeper in Southern California.

The fences were part of what Clinton referred to as a “get tough policy at our borders.” He used steel surplus military landing mats, which the Army Corps of Engineers welded together, to build an allegedly impassable wall. In the middle of Friendship Park, the Immigration and Naturalization Service built three parallel fences. Multiple fences, they argued, would allow agents to catch fence-jumpers in between them. Clinton’s barriers to humans went up alongside NAFTA, which opened the border to material goods, once again making the border more of a sieve than a seal.

Instead of stopping people from crossing, a more militarized border diverted them to dangerous landscapes, increasing migrant deaths exponentially. In the decade following Clinton’s fences, deaths along the border doubled.

Like his father, George W. Bush began his presidency hoping to build bridges with Mexico. He floated the idea of reviving and expanding a Bracero-style guest worker program to allow Mexicans to work in the United States legally. He made that recommendation consistently, even after the terrorist attacks of 2001. But reacting to those same attacks also led Bush and Congress to tighten border security and ultimately abandon his plan.

In 2006, Bush signed the Secure Fence Act, authorizing 700 miles of double-layered, reinforced fencing. When he left office, he had completed more than 500 miles. Barack Obama continued the work, building 130 more miles of fencing. He also famously funded the Border Patrol and deported more people than any president before him.

Although Donald Trump championed building his wall, his administration only built about 85 miles of new fences. Biden will now add 20 more.

Additional fencing will do what previous fencing has done: impose severe harm—on the environment, on borderland communities, livestock, and most of all on the human beings hoping to cross who will be diverted into costlier and deadlier routes. Fences have transformed the borderlands into a racialized graveyard, but they have not and will not stop people from migrating if doing so is a matter of survival. In a future where climate crises and political unrest is certain, so too are continued waves of migration.

Fences cannot “close the border” because borders are never simply open or shut. And the costs of making them impenetrable are grave.

As it stands, fences are piecemeal and violent. And historically, Republicans have been less inclined to build them than Democrats. There are currently 700 miles of non-contiguous fences along the 1,951-mile border. A Republican built most of those, but we cannot ignore that Democrats have also built and supported their fair share, showing bipartisan commitment to this symbol of illusory control. Biden has not made an about-face, he is simply continuing an interminable trend of border-building policies and now, like many who came before him, he has fallen into the same, familiar, repetitive pattern.


Full article and links within:

https://time.com/6324599/bidens-trump-history-border-wall/


URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2023/07/28/gop-lawmakers-once-praised-catholic-charities-now-they-want-defund-group/"]GOP lawmakers once praised Catholic Charities. Now they want to defund the group.
Some Republicans don’t like the work of Catholic Charities and other faith-based groups helping migrants at the U.S. border
By Jack Jenkins
July 28, 2023[/URL]

Sure, now they don't like the work of Catholic and faith-based groups, when they were the ones who authorized it. How about this: stop politicizing it and stop using tax payer money period. Defunding it is a good start, but there are still other entities that are receiving tax payer money.
 
Sure, now they don't like the work of Catholic and faith-based groups, when they were the ones who authorized it. How about this: stop politicizing it and stop using tax payer money period. Defunding it is a good start, but there are still other entities that are receiving tax payer money.

I agree, again.
 
But new fences are not a reversal of the Democratic Party’s agenda. They are part of an extensive history of both Democrats and Republicans selling Americans on the idea that they can stop border-crossings by simply starting a new program or building a big fence. Politicians from both parties have consistently attempted to “close the border,” as if doing so is actually possible, let alone desirable. Biden is not continuing construction on Trump’s border wall; he is continuing to build America’s border wall.

Is the dirt of the Chihuahuan Desert magic dirt?

Fences and walls work all around the world to separate peoples and nations hostile to one another.

Have for thousands of years.

Why is our southern border the only place on planet earth that those do not work?
 
Sen Mike Lee, on his fellow Senators.

h/t [MENTION=1874]Brian4Liberty[/MENTION]

I wish they wanted border security in America as much as they seem to want it in Ukraine.

I wish they wanted border security in America as much as they seem to want it in Ukraine.

I wish they wanted border security in America as much as they seem to want it in Ukraine.
 
Is the dirt of the Chihuahuan Desert magic dirt?

Fences and walls work all around the world to separate peoples and nations hostile to one another.

Have for thousands of years.

Why is our southern border the only place on planet earth that those do not work?

"The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" comes to mind, unless this entire exorcise is to create a police-state communist/fascist society like some of those other countries that some constantly admire and refer to. I still ask myself "do they hate us for our freedoms, or do Americans hate us for our freedoms?" Everyday, I am more and more convinced of the latter.


Oh, and, we can not afford it!


A Republican built most of those, but we cannot ignore that Democrats have also built and supported their fair share, showing bipartisan commitment to this symbol of illusory control.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION]

Ask yourself this question: We have more WALL today than at any point in U.S. history. How is it then, that we have more immigrants coming in today than at any point in U.S. history? Don't you see a $$pattern$$ here?
 
"The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" comes to mind, unless this entire exorcise is to create a police-state communist/fascist society like some of those other countries that some constantly admire and refer to. I still ask myself "do they hate us for our freedoms, or do Americans hate us for our freedoms?" Everyday, I am more and more convinced of the latter.

We already got that. We're under more surveillance than the old East Germany could have wet dreamed about.

We have that, in part, because we have allowed millions and millions and millions of invaders, many of them from countries and cultures hostile to freedom and liberty and limited government.

How do you think California turned into a North Korean type of literal uni-party tyranny in just thirty years?

That's the plan for every state.

Freedom is precious, delicate and it needs to be guarded and nurtured and protected, because it is not the default condition of humanity.

Oh, and, we can not afford it!

Sure we can, once we stop passing out billions and billions of dollars to places like Israel and Ukraine and the invaders themselves, pull the troops out of every warzone in the world and defend the nation's border as the constitution demands. Do that last bit, and you could slash the military budget in half, saving hundreds of billions.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION]

Ask yourself this question: We have more WALL today than at any point in U.S. history. How is it then, that we have more immigrants coming in today than at any point in U.S. history? Don't you see a $$pattern$$ here?

Walls with holes, fences with open gates, massive stretches of non guarded border is not a secure border.

Because enemies of the republic, foreign and domestic, are orchestrating this invasion.

The best lock in the world is not going to do any good if you leave the door wide open.

Of course I see a pattern: Quislings and traitors within government working hand in hand with foreign enemies of many stripes, continue the work of destroying this nation that they started in 1965.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION]

Ask yourself this question: We have more WALL today than at any point in U.S. history. How is it then, that we have more immigrants coming in today than at any point in U.S. history? Don't you see a $$pattern$$ here?

Well, yeah, my man... They're being aided and abetted all the way from Central America to the border.

Look, it would be one thing if this was a natural migration - people intrinsically seeking a better life, and wanting to live free here with us. But they're not. They're being fish-netted and dragged up into here with the expectation that they're going to suckle from the teat of the Tree of Liberty.

It's an invasion, dude. And it's being financed by the UN and the US government... the ends of which we can debate, but the nature of it is not in the least in dispute.
 
America’s Border Wall Is Bipartisan
.
.
But new fences are not a reversal of the Democratic Party’s agenda. They are part of an extensive history of both Democrats and Republicans selling Americans on the idea that they can stop border-crossings by simply starting a new program or building a big fence. Politicians from both parties have consistently attempted to “close the border,” as if doing so is actually possible, let alone desirable. Biden is not continuing construction on Trump’s border wall; he is continuing to build America’s border wall.

The first border fences built along the U.S.-Mexico border to curb immigration from Mexico began in earnest under Democrats Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. After building fences for decades to stop animals, the federal government shifted its focus when people began migrating in significant numbers from south to north in the 1940s and 1950s.
.
.
To fill labor gaps left by World War II, the nations agreed to a guest worker program, known as the Bracero Program. Not everyone qualified to participate, though, so thousands began migrating independently.
.
.
The Bracero Program ended in 1964, and a year later, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act which, for the first time, placed a cap on the number of people who could immigrate to the U.S. from Western Hemisphere countries like Mexico. This shift in regulation directed greater attention to the border.

Facing economic distress and American angst with rising tides of labor migrations from Mexico, Democrat Jimmy Carter replaced the fence Nixon had cut with a bigger, stronger fence in 1979. A year before it went up, its design stirred controversy when the contractor stated it would “sever the toes” of anyone who dared to breach it. After public outcry, Carter’s administration redesigned the fence to be plain, but tightly woven, wire mesh topped with barbed wire. Even if that fence did not sever toes, it did tear through Pat Nixon’s bi-nationally spirited park.

Republican Ronald Reagan also closed the border for a few weeks in 1985, repeating Operation Intercept. Despite his idea that he could close the border at his whim, Reagan, like First Lady Nixon, demonstrated hesitation about actual border fences. In a 1980 debate with future President George H.W. Bush, Reagan had said, “Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit and then while they’re working and earning here they pay taxes here.”

Reagan later signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The law provided legalization to over two million undocumented immigrants who had been working in the United States, increased the legal culpability for employers who hired undocumented people, and provided funding for more Border Patrol agents. Although Reagan did not build fences, his administration did maintain the ones that existed, and he provided funds to increase border surveillance, as did George H.W. Bush.

In the 1990s intense xenophobia and public debate about unauthorized immigration escalated in the United States, prompting both parties to move toward physically securing the border. Democrat Bill Clinton’s policies would not just tear through Pat Nixon’s park, they would effectively destroy it. In 1993 and 1994, Clinton launched three separate border operations: Operation Hold the Line in Texas, Operation Safeguard in Arizona, and Operation Gatekeeper in Southern California.

The fences were part of what Clinton referred to as a “get tough policy at our borders.” He used steel surplus military landing mats, which the Army Corps of Engineers welded together, to build an allegedly impassable wall. In the middle of Friendship Park, the Immigration and Naturalization Service built three parallel fences. Multiple fences, they argued, would allow agents to catch fence-jumpers in between them. Clinton’s barriers to humans went up alongside NAFTA, which opened the border to material goods, once again making the border more of a sieve than a seal.

Instead of stopping people from crossing, a more militarized border diverted them to dangerous landscapes, increasing migrant deaths exponentially. In the decade following Clinton’s fences, deaths along the border doubled.

Like his father, George W. Bush began his presidency hoping to build bridges with Mexico. He floated the idea of reviving and expanding a Bracero-style guest worker program to allow Mexicans to work in the United States legally. He made that recommendation consistently, even after the terrorist attacks of 2001. But reacting to those same attacks also led Bush and Congress to tighten border security and ultimately abandon his plan.

In 2006, Bush signed the Secure Fence Act, authorizing 700 miles of double-layered, reinforced fencing. When he left office, he had completed more than 500 miles. Barack Obama continued the work, building 130 more miles of fencing. He also famously funded the Border Patrol and deported more people than any president before him.

Although Donald Trump championed building his wall, his administration only built about 85 miles of new fences. Biden will now add 20 more.

Additional fencing will do what previous fencing has done: impose severe harm—on the environment, on borderland communities, livestock, and most of all on the human beings hoping to cross who will be diverted into costlier and deadlier routes. Fences have transformed the borderlands into a racialized graveyard, but they have not and will not stop people from migrating if doing so is a matter of survival. In a future where climate crises and political unrest is certain, so too are continued waves of migration.

Fences cannot “close the border” because borders are never simply open or shut. And the costs of making them impenetrable are grave.

As it stands, fences are piecemeal and violent. And historically, Republicans have been less inclined to build them than Democrats. There are currently 700 miles of non-contiguous fences along the 1,951-mile border. A Republican built most of those, but we cannot ignore that Democrats have also built and supported their fair share, showing bipartisan commitment to this symbol of illusory control. Biden has not made an about-face, he is simply continuing an interminable trend of border-building policies and now, like many who came before him, he has fallen into the same, familiar, repetitive pattern.


Full article and links within:

https://time.com/6324599/bidens-trump-history-border-wall/




Sure, now they don't like the work of Catholic and faith-based groups, when they were the ones who authorized it. How about this: stop politicizing it and stop using tax payer money period. Defunding it is a good start, but there are still other entities that are receiving tax payer money.

See, those mentions of xenophobia, racism and climate are lies. I have never known a xenophobe. In fact, as that Israel Shamir piece I linked you to said, I've found people, including myself, interested in and curious about foreigners. Same for "races" where any conflict is nearly always culturally based and not about skin color. And, climate, well, that's one of the excuses the shitlibs used to justify this engineered mass displacement of populations. It's the numbers that people are reacting to. Overwhelming numbers, manipulated into coming here with financial incentives. With such huge numbers and no way of knowing who they are comes the guaranteed risk of a percentage being violent criminals. There's also no assimilation with such numbers, unlike when one family decides to emigrate because they want to be a part of the country and culture they want to adopt. Those are legitimate concerns. So, as you always say, cut off the money and only those honestly seeking to build themselves a better life, through their own effort, will come.
 
Well, yeah, my man... They're being aided and abetted all the way from Central America to the border.

Look, it would be one thing if this was a natural migration - people intrinsically seeking a better life, and wanting to live free here with us. But they're not. They're being fish-netted and dragged up into here with the expectation that they're going to suckle from the teat of the Tree of Liberty.

It's an invasion, dude. And it's being financed by the UN and the US government... the ends of which we can debate, but the nature of it is not in the least in dispute.

Bingo.

When the people accept and take responsibility, and admit that this is an invitation [not an invasion], then perhaps they will demand their representatives to stop payments/funding. You know me well enough , bro ;-) that everything comes down to money.

I don't have any beef with anybody from anywhere wanting to come here to legitimately seek a better life, as long as it's not on my tax dime. But you are absolutely right, it is aiding and abetting, and the funding is coming from the tax payer, and the U.S. politicians [the true traitors] who are authorizing it. Once the money stops - it stops. And that's the point I am trying to get across.
 
When the people accept and take responsibility, and admit that this is an invitation [not an invasion]

When the goal, when the stated purpose of bringing this wretched refuse to our country, by the tens of millions, is to alter the population, the culture, the history, the political structure, the institutions, the traditions, the ethos and the heart and soul of the country, changing it, turning it upside down into something awful and unrecognizable to the people who live here and built this nation from wilderness, that is an invasion.

Full stop.
 
Back
Top