- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 6,289
- Reaction score
- 7,654
- Points
- 113
doesnt matter, its over. Trump changed the assylum law, immagrants can no longer use this loophole. While the people protesting and focusing on making a scene for the media Trump killed their dreams forever
They changed the "rules" and not the law and it's being challenged in court. They have to apply for asylum in the 1st country they arrive at. If Mexico denies them asylum then they can apply with the US. Hopefully it will slow them down.please xplain, I missed this fantastic news
They changed the "rules" and not the law and it's being challenged in court. They have to apply for asylum in the 1st country they arrive at. If Mexico denies them asylum then they can apply with the US. Hopefully it will slow them down.
Sent from my LM-X410(FG) using Tapatalk
I was just about to post that. yes if you flee your country and end up in mexico or UK you are no longer in danger and thus need to flee no further at which point you can apply like everyone else and waithttps://nypost.com/2019/07/21/trumps-changes-to-asylum-rules-make-perfect-sense/
Sent from my LM-X410(FG) using Tapatalk
mexico already offered these people assylum yet they continued, proves its for economic reasons not safetyIt sure should slow them down, if Mexico does their part.
Here's an interesting summary on the UN migration pact.
https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2018/11/un-migrant-compact-death-of-nations.html
FDR and Trump are very similar in there approach (Supreme Court justices being appointed for policy advancement- I get it)
FDR didn’t end the depression with his policies, WW2 did.
FDR denied stalins reign of terror and supported communist advances into China (I get it, again WW2.)
FDR wasn’t a bad President but he wasn’t the holy grail of presidency.
But still, the Democratic Party back then isn’t the democratic party today.
FDR and Trump have different personalities but the approach is similar.
Oh, but ghee wiz, globalization is the goal.
this shit is pathetic.
It's pointless to separate out "FDR's policies" from "WW2". Both are massive gov't spending, the same Keynesian stimulus at heart for an under performing low-demand economy. Gov't spending, whether it's schools, highways, police, or blowing shit up with the military is all still gov't spending.
Also, FDR's policies got us involved in WW2 as soon as possible, so one leads to the other: FDR's policies -> WW2. He was fighting huge internal opposition against involvement, i.e. Conservative isolationist movement. Nonetheless we supplied Britain with food and war materials long before the Pearl Harbor attack effectively smashed down the right wing isolationists from further influence, alongside pro-Nazi sympathizers as well.
Funny, they never really went away did they? Trump brought that zombie out of the dungeon.
So much to be proud of there.
The massive WW2 spending surge put everyone to work, but other sorts of spending would do just as well (better in fact, since you get infrastructure out of it) -- look at post-WW2 Japan, Germany, or Costa Rica. Tiny to non-existent military, yet robust growth. Costa Rica in particular puts all its neighbors to shame. You do not need military spending for economic growth, although it can be an "easy mode" political solution when you have anti-gov't spending conservatives who somehow think massive military budgets are "ok" but nothing else.
FDR and his New Deal gave us the Middle Class.
Without his policies we'd still have Gilded Age oligarchic control of the economy, most people living in piss poor working class conditions, trailer parks, ghettos, etc... what the oligarchs are trying to bring back for us today. The golden age of middle class America was the 30's - 70's, each generation living much better than the one before. It's been eroding ever since. That gap between the lines in the graph is wealth that has been siphoned off nearly all wage-earners into the pockets of corporate ownership. The balance shifted, hence no more golden age.
It's common for Liberals to blame Reagan for starting this trend -- and he certainly contributed mightily -- but it actually began in the early 70's, a decade before him and a product of much larger political forces than just one president or even one party.
I have trouble seeing much similarity between FDR and Trump... that's a real reach. But Trump does (or did?) want to push through a massive $1 trillion infrastructure bill, and that's FDR-style socialist gov't expenditure all the way, for sure.
You think the GOP will ever allow him to do it though? They had two years of full control (before losing the House in '18) and I only saw Trump get swatted down.
mexico already offered these people assylum yet they continued, proves its for economic reasons not safety
Good god. Have you seen the murder rates in Honduras? Guatemala... El Savador? Take a look and have your eyes opened.
Yes, it's economic reasons as well. Of course it is. It's both. Would you want to get murdered by street gangs in your home country, or be unable to find any decent paying work there? I'm guessing you'd want neither.
Also, MX is not terribly safe either these days. Not as bad as those three countries on the southern border, but the Mexican "War on Drugs" is a very different beast than the one we have here in the US. 100,000+ killed in the last 13 years? Entire Mexican states beyond federal control? I stopped following it a while back. But anyway, if I were a Honduran on the march north I'd want to make it to Texas.
That said, we can't let em all in.
...
also nationalism isn’t a crime, nor is it a bad thing.
I didnt deny any of that, and have no problem with people coming here. but the facts arent at being aknowledge by either side, and the wacky dems are full on lying about everything so its hard to take a real problem and fix it when they want to focus on shit that doesnt existGood god. Have you seen the murder rates in Honduras? Guatemala... El Savador? Take a look and have your eyes opened.
Yes, it's economic reasons as well. Of course it is. It's both. Would you want to get murdered by street gangs in your home country, or be unable to find any decent paying work there? I'm guessing you'd want neither.
Also, MX is not terribly safe either these days. Not as bad as those three countries on the southern border, but the Mexican "War on Drugs" is a very different beast than the one we have here in the US. 100,000+ killed in the last 13 years? Entire Mexican states beyond federal control? I stopped following it a while back. But anyway, if I were a Honduran on the march north I'd want to make it to Texas.
That said, we can't let em all in.
They have to be fleeing persecution by their own government for legit asylem. The people that are leaving are the ones thay actully have money. They are paying the cartels thousands of dollars for the not so safe passage to our border.Good god. Have you seen the murder rates in Honduras? Guatemala... El Savador? Take a look and have your eyes opened.
Yes, it's economic reasons as well. Of course it is. It's both. Would you want to get murdered by street gangs in your home country, or be unable to find any decent paying work there? I'm guessing you'd want neither.
Also, MX is not terribly safe either these days. Not as bad as those three countries on the southern border, but the Mexican "War on Drugs" is a very different beast than the one we have here in the US. 100,000+ killed in the last 13 years? Entire Mexican states beyond federal control? I stopped following it a while back. But anyway, if I were a Honduran on the march north I'd want to make it to Texas.
That said, we can't let em all in.
I don't necessarily think so either.
But what made you mention it? My comment about pro-Nazi sympathizers and Trump's resurrection of them?
Good god. Have you seen the murder rates in Honduras? Guatemala... El Savador? Take a look and have your eyes opened.
Yes, it's economic reasons as well. Of course it is. It's both. Would you want to get murdered by street gangs in your home country, or be unable to find any decent paying work there? I'm guessing you'd want neither.
Also, MX is not terribly safe either these days. Not as bad as those three countries on the southern border, but the Mexican "War on Drugs" is a very different beast than the one we have here in the US. 100,000+ killed in the last 13 years? Entire Mexican states beyond federal control? I stopped following it a while back. But anyway, if I were a Honduran on the march north I'd want to make it to Texas.
That said, we can't let em all in.
Beto O'rourke was actually campaigning in Mexico. His real name is Francis. He changed his name just to pander to Latinos. Guy is a douche bag!my major issue here is how some people dont except the facts and the more some are presented with it the hard they fight for their position. Why does a politcian from NJ travel to mexico to prep migrants on how to lie and seak assylum, and not respect the law of the country he represents. that to me speaks volumes on how all this fucker cares about is votes
They are imploding and they have the liberal media that hates Trump's guts to cover for them.think about this, polls show the squad AOC and talib rating are really low among democrats, AOCs approval is like 8%. the party has been infighting pelosi and AOC and some lines are being drawn.
Trump tweets a bit of a jab that boosts trumps base and at the same time united the dems around people they were trying to seperate out and have low approvals
while the media focused on trumps tweets and the squads press conferences about him being a racist ( think about that the dems have been salivating over it they finally got it ) while they were distracted he amends the asylum process, case closed he jedi mind fucked them and played them all as fools and hes still laughing at them. Dems have no legs now, its over
What is your point? We either have borders and immigration laws or we don't, there are no shades of grey. You seem to have a sliding scale or am I misunderstanding you?