The next wave of demographic warfare: thousands from Ebola ravaged Africa on the way

[Swordsmyth]

If we don't put a stop to these immigrants, they're gonna turn our Great country into some kind of tyrannical socialist hellhole!

We certainly wouldn't want that to happen!!

It can get much worse.

How would you like Texas to be a second Kalifornia?

 

[RestorationOfLiberty]

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/6860...a-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings





More at link.

We are taking about other groups then people from Mexico, stop lying. And we could easily end this by issuing an arrest warrant for those who overstay and a 1 strike policy, but in classic sperg fashion "Well that will work, so we can not allow it" nonsense.

 

[RestorationOfLiberty]

In 2017, 700,000 overstayed their visas. Links provided including DHS and Fox News.

Border apprehensions include asylum seekers who are trying to enter the country legally. Apprehended does not mean they made it into the country illegally. In 2018, that number was 400,000. Also if the same person was caught five times, that counts as five separate apprehensions. Visa overstayers did remain in the country.

Juan...Just remember these lies when in the near future you are removed from the nation you sought to undermine....

You can preach all the open border nonsense to the Mexicans.....In Mexico, where they and YOU belong.

 

[TheTexan]

It can get much worse.

How would you like Texas to be a second Kalifornia?

Would there be a UBI ?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Would there be a UBI ?

If you vote hard for it.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Wait a minute...the rest of the one worlders here are telling me that migration has "exploded" under Trump...ya'll need to keep your stories straight.

One worlders? All this time, ever since your Bolshevik immigration stance, you've been telling us that this is why you did a 180. You used to support Ron Paul's immigration position. And then lately you've been telling us that you changed because the numbers of brown people coming here peacefully to work have gotten so high that it's reached the point of being an invasion. You were fine with it back in 2008 and 2012 because it hadn't reached that point yet. Need me to find your quotes?

 

[Superfluous Man]

We are taking about other groups then people from Mexico, stop lying. And we could easily end this by issuing an arrest warrant for those who overstay and a 1 strike policy, but in classic sperg fashion "Well that will work, so we can not allow it" nonsense.

In order for that to work you have to have a way to identify someone as a person who overstayed a visa. How do you do that without requiring that everyone in the country, including natural-born citizens, be able to provide paperwork showing they're here lawfully.

 

[Superfluous Man]

In 2017, 700,000 overstayed their visas. Links provided including DHS and Fox News.

Border apprehensions include asylum seekers who are trying to enter the country legally. Apprehended does not mean they made it into the country illegally. In 2018, that number was 400,000. Also if the same person was caught five times, that counts as five separate apprehensions. Visa overstayers did remain in the country.

Are those fiscal years or calendar years? So far, in fiscal year 2019, there have already been over 600k border apprehensions. And in calendar year 2019 it's over 400k. So it's definitely on pace to surpass any of the Obama years and to rival the higher Bush years.

 

[Anti Federalist]

One worlders? All this time, ever since your Bolshevik immigration stance, you've been telling us that this is why you did a 180. You used to support Ron Paul's immigration position. And then lately you've been telling us that you changed because the numbers of brown people coming here peacefully to work have gotten so high that it's reached the point of being an invasion. You were fine with it back in 2008 and 2012 because it hadn't reached that point yet. Need me to find your quotes?

Two things wrong in your analysis:

A - I still support Ron Paul's position, which is bring the troops home and use them to defend the border. You folks no longer support that, not me.

B - I have changed my tune because it has been made clear by both the colored people you speak of and the people that control them that their goal is NOT to come here peacefully and work, but rather to displace and replace me and my posterity, to shut me and mine out of the nation that we built, and in the worst cases I have seen, just kill us outright, which is usually what happens in these scenarios. THAT is what has changed.

 

[Superfluous Man]

A - I still support Ron Paul's position, which is bring the troops home and use them to defend the border. You folks no longer support that, not me.

Defending the border from an actual invading military force, as Ron Paul proposed in the quotes you have in mind, is not really what we're debating here. And you know full well that he doesn't support preventing peaceful people coming here to work from doing so, whether by the military shooting them in the face, as you propose, or by any other means either. His policy is to let them come.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I no longer support defending people and property from actual acts of violence. I have never suggested that. What I don't support is redefining nonviolent acts as violent ones, as an excuse for having the very kind of police state that once upon a time you were famous here for being against.

B - I have changed my tune because it has been made clear by both the colored people you speak of and the people that control them that their goal is NOT to come here peacefully and work, but rather to displace and replace me and my posterity, to shut me and mine out of the nation that we built, and in the worst cases I have seen, just kill us outright, which is usually what happens in these scenarios. THAT is what has changed.

Oh really? So for those who do come here peacefully to work, you support allowing them to do that?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Wait a minute...the rest of the one worlders here are telling me that migration has "exploded" under Trump...ya'll need to keep your stories straight.

The asylum seekers are not trying to get in illegally but want in legally. Their numbers have definitely been surging. They go to official crossing points and seek to turn themselves in so they can request asylum. A judge will decide if they deserve it or not- 90% are rejected. The problem is that there are so many waiting for trials- over a million now.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Are those fiscal years or calendar years? So far, in fiscal year 2019, there have already been over 600k border apprehensions. And in calendar year 2019 it's over 400k. So it's definitely on pace to surpass any of the Obama years and to rival the higher Bush years.

Fiscal years. FY 2017 ended October of that year.

 

[Zippyjuan]

We are taking about other groups then people from Mexico, stop lying. And we could easily end this by issuing an arrest warrant for those who overstay and a 1 strike policy, but in classic sperg fashion "Well that will work, so we can not allow it" nonsense.

Ron Paul: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

 

[tod evans]

I'm willing to trade one dozen GS-6 and above government 'workers' for every immigrant.

For every immigrant that wants to bring their family it goes up to a dozen and a half GS-6 plus their families and they must never be allowed back.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The asylum seekers are not trying to get in illegally but want in legally. Their numbers have definitely been surging. They go to official crossing points and seek to turn themselves in so they can request asylum. A judge will decide if they deserve it or not- 90% are rejected. The problem is that there are so many waiting for trials- over a million now.

They come in illegally and turn themselves in when caught, they also are trying to get in illegally by filing false asylum claims.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Ron Paul: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

That is one of Ron's few bad positions, any reward to illegals will encourage more.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Defending the border from an actual invading military force, as Ron Paul proposed in the quotes you have in mind, is not really what we're debating here. And you know full well that he doesn't support preventing peaceful people coming here to work from doing so, whether by the military shooting them in the face, as you propose, or by any other means either. His policy is to let them come.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I no longer support defending people and property from actual acts of violence. I have never suggested that. What I don't support is redefining nonviolent acts as violent ones, as an excuse for having the very kind of police state that once upon a time you were famous here for being against.



Oh really? So for those who do come here peacefully to work, you support allowing them to do that?

Ron was clear that he wanted the military to secure our border against illegals and since you can't read minds you have to limit how many foreigners come here in order to prevent them from imposing tyranny.

 

[PAF]

Ron was clear that he wanted the military to secure our border against illegals and since you can't read minds you have to limit how many foreigners come here in order to prevent them from imposing tyranny.

Yet you can read minds and blanket statement everybody.


You never answered SM's question:

So for those who do come here peacefully to work, you support allowing them to do that?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yet you can read minds and blanket statement everybody.

No, I can see statistics and real world results and calculate what effects an influx of random members of particular groups will have on my rights.

You never answered SM's question:

Yes I did:

since you can't read minds you have to limit how many foreigners come here in order to prevent them from imposing tyranny.

 

[eleganz]

The Left: Stop caging the sad, crying ebola children!