Why do liberals ignore the truth about refugees?

[Clementine]

This is how it goes when Muslims become the majority in an area. They take over and create a new country for themselves. They leave their homelands only to turn the new place into the same hellholes they left. It's because they aren't running from their oppressive countries, they are merely expanding them. They do not tolerate gays. They do not believe in women's rights. They do not tolerate other religions. They impose sharia law and send out patrols to harass offenders, even those who are not Muslim. They believe in cutting off the hands of thieves, stoning adulterers and beating women who don't obey. Gays are still being attacked and tortured. But the left still accuses those concerned of being Islamophobic. Apparently, it's a matter of allowing Muslims to disrespect rights of others and bowing to their barbaric ways or you are the problem. Never mind that they have zero tolerance of others, they will never be accused of being discriminating against those who disobey sharia.

We are seeing the beginning of this in a town in Michigan that has a majority Muslim city government. They immediately began outlawing alcohol and forcing people to listen to the Muslim call to prayer numerous times a day, starting early in the morning. They have no respect for western culture. They are not coming to assimilate, they are coming to change things. Oppose and prepare to be called names by the left.

Meanwhile, the left expresses outrage for not having enough black nominees at the Oscars or bakeries who won't cater gay weddings. How can one be against that and not against the genocide of Christians and gays in Muslim countries?

Norway: Oslo Police: "We Have Lost the City

http://en.europenews.dk/Norway-Oslo-Police-We-Have-Lost-the-City-79027.html




"Throughout the six years Reza Gul and her husband, Muhammad Khan, 25, have been married, he and members of his family have regularly abused her, beating her and binding her in chains, said Reza Gul’s mother, Zarghona. Mr. Khan regularly went to Iran for work, returned for a few months during which he abused his wife, then left her with his family, she said," reports The New York Times. "Her plight has again brought attention to endemic violence against women in Afghanistan, which the United Nations Development Program rated one of the worst countries in the world to be born female. Despite more than a decade of efforts to enact an Afghan legal system that protects women, and more than $1 billion in legal aid from the United States alone, Afghan women remain particularly vulnerable to abuse. And their attackers, for the most part, are only rarely punished."


This same culture of violence against women has been recently imported to Europe where throngs of Muslim men have attacked and sexually assaulted unsuspecting women after gratuitously being offered asylum by German authorities. New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany was Europe’s first (modern) taste of Islamic-sanctioned patriarchy.

No, this isn’t the same 'rape culture' in Salon mythologized by fear-mongering Western leftists. This is full-scale inhumane war on women: religious fanatics, emboldened by honor-culture and hyper-masculinity, chopping off their wives' noses for disobedience.

"Severing women's noses is not unheard of in Afghanistan and like most abuse probably happens more often than is publicly acknowledged," explains Daily Mail (UK). "In November a young woman was stoned to death after being accused of adultery in the central province of Ghor. And last March a woman named Farkhunda was savagely beaten and set ablaze in central Kabul after being falsely accused of burning a Koran."


So, let the so-called third wave "feminists" and "social justice warriors," blinded by the myopia of white-guilt and paternalism, bemoan "problematic" language and politically incorrect jokes, while turning a blind eye to the barbaric abuse of girls in the Islamic world. The rest of us will be fighting for women’s rights.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2806/afghani-muslim-patriarch-cuts-wifes-nose-take-7-yr-joshua-yasmeh?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=011216-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

[Impenitent]

The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas,

which BTW, Bubba Cliton allowed in, he is the one to blame for the September11, 2001AD terrorist attack on my country.

N

Why do wingnuts lie about refugees?

This shit's been going on since the Hessians and the Revolutionary War.

America knows that refugees aren't a threat.

Grandma weren't the 9/11 attacks and the Boston bombings carried out by immigrants?
And the latest shooting by the couple who specifically trained and planned the attacks.

No matter the percentage of guilty parties to mass numbers with no criminal intent,
I don't think you are going to convince any of these
that immigration doesn't pose a threat to public safety.

Even my friends who want a completely open border,
lock their houses up and don't just invite anyone in to help themselves.

There is nothing wrong with asking for a better screening and application process
so the people with completely lawabiding intent can access and process through normally,
while people who pose health or safety issues can be identified and get help as well.

We don't have to argue over "how much is a problem or not," to set up a system that works to screen otu problems and sovle them, without punishing the innocent, the workers or the public and taxpayers.

No. The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas, and the Boston bombers entered as tourists. (Not refugees). apples and oranges

Nope! Partially correct. They entered as tourists and then were asylum seekers.

No. I said they entered the US as tourists. They applied for asylum while already here. They were never refugees, so their misdeeds should in no way be applied toSyrian refugees.

I never said they were refugees! Are you a liberal afflicted like most with reading comprehension problems?

I originally refuted theirbeing described as 'refugees' by emilynghiem, Try reading comprehension yourself. I accused you of nothing.

 

[Impenitent]

The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas,

which BTW, Bubba Cliton allowed in, he is the one to blame for the September11, 2001AD terrorist attack on my country.

By your thinking then, Bush gets credit for Boston.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas,

which BTW, Bubba Cliton allowed in, he is the one to blame for the September11, 2001AD terrorist attack on my country.

N

Grandma weren't the 9/11 attacks and the Boston bombings carried out by immigrants?
And the latest shooting by the couple who specifically trained and planned the attacks.

No matter the percentage of guilty parties to mass numbers with no criminal intent,
I don't think you are going to convince any of these
that immigration doesn't pose a threat to public safety.

Even my friends who want a completely open border,
lock their houses up and don't just invite anyone in to help themselves.

There is nothing wrong with asking for a better screening and application process
so the people with completely lawabiding intent can access and process through normally,
while people who pose health or safety issues can be identified and get help as well.

We don't have to argue over "how much is a problem or not," to set up a system that works to screen otu problems and sovle them, without punishing the innocent, the workers or the public and taxpayers.

No. The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas, and the Boston bombers entered as tourists. (Not refugees). apples and oranges

Nope! Partially correct. They entered as tourists and then were asylum seekers.

No. I said they entered the US as tourists. They applied for asylum while already here. They were never refugees, so their misdeeds should in no way be applied toSyrian refugees.

I never said they were refugees! Are you a liberal afflicted like most with reading comprehension problems?

I originally refuted theirbeing described as 'refugees' by emilynghiem, Try reading comprehension yourself. I accused you of nothing.

You do also realize that those given asylum must be refugees. Right?

Asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

]Refugees & Asylum

EPIC FAIL!

 

[Impenitent]

The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas,

which BTW, Bubba Cliton allowed in, he is the one to blame for the September11, 2001AD terrorist attack on my country.

N

No. The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas, and the Boston bombers entered as tourists. (Not refugees). apples and oranges

Nope! Partially correct. They entered as tourists and then were asylum seekers.

No. I said they entered the US as tourists. They applied for asylum while already here. They were never refugees, so their misdeeds should in no way be applied toSyrian refugees.

I never said they were refugees! Are you a liberal afflicted like most with reading comprehension problems?

I originally refuted theirbeing described as 'refugees' by emilynghiem, Try reading comprehension yourself. I accused you of nothing.

You do also realize that those given asylum must be refugees. Right?

Asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

]Refugees & Asylum

EPIC FAIL!

Wrong. You are reading that incorrectly . You can be granted asylum without being a refugee first, which the boston bombers were.

From your link:
"You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States."

Since the bombers had already entered the US, they could not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas,

which BTW, Bubba Cliton allowed in, he is the one to blame for the September11, 2001AD terrorist attack on my country.

N

Nope! Partially correct. They entered as tourists and then were asylum seekers.

No. I said they entered the US as tourists. They applied for asylum while already here. They were never refugees, so their misdeeds should in no way be applied toSyrian refugees.

I never said they were refugees! Are you a liberal afflicted like most with reading comprehension problems?

I originally refuted theirbeing described as 'refugees' by emilynghiem, Try reading comprehension yourself. I accused you of nothing.

You do also realize that those given asylum must be refugees. Right?

Asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

]Refugees & Asylum

EPIC FAIL!

Wrong. You are reading that incorrectly . You can be granted asylum without being a refugee first, which the boston bombers were.

From your link:
"You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States."

Since the bombers had already entered the US, they could not.

You lost the argument. Any normal person would say, "Oops! My mistake!" and that would be the end of it, but you want to double down and tell me I am wrong when I just posted definitive proof that asylum seekers must meet the definition of a refugee.

How much of a flaming asshole do you really want to appear to be?

 

[Impenitent]

The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas,

which BTW, Bubba Cliton allowed in, he is the one to blame for the September11, 2001AD terrorist attack on my country.

N
No. I said they entered the US as tourists. They applied for asylum while already here. They were never refugees, so their misdeeds should in no way be applied toSyrian refugees.

I never said they were refugees! Are you a liberal afflicted like most with reading comprehension problems?

I originally refuted theirbeing described as 'refugees' by emilynghiem, Try reading comprehension yourself. I accused you of nothing.

You do also realize that those given asylum must be refugees. Right?

Asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

]Refugees & Asylum

EPIC FAIL!

Wrong. You are reading that incorrectly . You can be granted asylum without being a refugee first, which the boston bombers were.

From your link:
"You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States."

Since the bombers had already entered the US, they could not.

You lost the argument. Any normal person would say, "Oops! My mistake!" and that would be the end of it, but you want to double down and tell me I am wrong when I just posted definitive proof that asylum seekers must meet the definition of a refugee.

How much of a flaming asshole do you really want to appear to be?

They could have met the definition of refugee prior to their entry of the US, but once they were in, they could not. I don't think you realize that to be declared a refugee requires a legal threshold that they didn't meet.

Additionally, of these three possible qualifications:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

The bombers only needed to meet one, which was 'are already in the United States.' Neither of the other 2 applied.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

which BTW, Bubba Cliton allowed in, he is the one to blame for the September11, 2001AD terrorist attack on my country.

I never said they were refugees! Are you a liberal afflicted like most with reading comprehension problems?

I originally refuted theirbeing described as 'refugees' by emilynghiem, Try reading comprehension yourself. I accused you of nothing.

You do also realize that those given asylum must be refugees. Right?

Asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

]Refugees & Asylum

EPIC FAIL!

Wrong. You are reading that incorrectly . You can be granted asylum without being a refugee first, which the boston bombers were.

From your link:
"You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States."

Since the bombers had already entered the US, they could not.

You lost the argument. Any normal person would say, "Oops! My mistake!" and that would be the end of it, but you want to double down and tell me I am wrong when I just posted definitive proof that asylum seekers must meet the definition of a refugee.

How much of a flaming asshole do you really want to appear to be?

They could have met the definition of refugee prior to their entry of the US, but once they were in, they could not. I don't think you realize that to be declared a refugee requires a legal threshold that they didn't meet.

Additionally, of these three possible qualifications:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

The bombers only needed to meet one, which was 'are already in the United States.' Neither of the other 2 applied.

Excuse me for daring to question your interpretation, but where do you see the word "or" anywhere? They must meet ALL of those requirements, not one. Your post is not true.

It says:
Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

You changed the wording in your post.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why do wingnuts lie about refugees?

This shit's been going on since the Hessians and the Revolutionary War.

America knows that refugees aren't a threat.

Grandma weren't the 9/11 attacks and the Boston bombings carried out by immigrants?
And the latest shooting by the couple who specifically trained and planned the attacks.

No matter the percentage of guilty parties to mass numbers with no criminal intent,
I don't think you are going to convince any of these
that immigration doesn't pose a threat to public safety.

Even my friends who want a completely open border,
lock their houses up and don't just invite anyone in to help themselves.

There is nothing wrong with asking for a better screening and application process
so the people with completely lawabiding intent can access and process through normally,
while people who pose health or safety issues can be identified and get help as well.

We don't have to argue over "how much is a problem or not," to set up a system that works to screen otu problems and sovle them, without punishing the innocent, the workers or the public and taxpayers.

No. The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas, and the Boston bombers entered as tourists. (Not refugees). apples and oranges

Dear Impenitent
Last I checked it's the same immigration system that issues the Visas.
I know some lawyers who were asking how did the Chinese manage to get their workers into the
country as "masseuses" and how could the same process be used to get in immigrants from other countries.

So yes, people are using the VISA's whether for students, workers, etc.
to try to get into the country legally first, and then apply to stay here.

This is all part of the immigration system.

So we are talking about all the fruit in the basket, not trying to haggle over apples and oranges that are both included in the mix.

NOTE: When I did try to research the Chinese immigration, it seems it was common to argue for asylum because of the one child policy. For the student Visas, one types requires that the applicants are only coming in for training that isn't available in their country, and they don't work for pay in America unless it's part of the training, after which they return to their home country to apply that training. But the other commonly used Visa was the one that only the rich Chinese can afford, which is paying a high price with the agreement to set up businesses that are going to create jobs. So the wealthy Chinese are basically buying their way in. There were only a limited number of these, so the Chinese who could afford them were buying them up quickly.

 

[Impenitent]

I originally refuted theirbeing described as 'refugees' by emilynghiem, Try reading comprehension yourself. I accused you of nothing.

You do also realize that those given asylum must be refugees. Right?

Asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

]Refugees & Asylum

EPIC FAIL!

Wrong. You are reading that incorrectly . You can be granted asylum without being a refugee first, which the boston bombers were.

From your link:
"You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States."

Since the bombers had already entered the US, they could not.

You lost the argument. Any normal person would say, "Oops! My mistake!" and that would be the end of it, but you want to double down and tell me I am wrong when I just posted definitive proof that asylum seekers must meet the definition of a refugee.

How much of a flaming asshole do you really want to appear to be?

They could have met the definition of refugee prior to their entry of the US, but once they were in, they could not. I don't think you realize that to be declared a refugee requires a legal threshold that they didn't meet.

Additionally, of these three possible qualifications:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

The bombers only needed to meet one, which was 'are already in the United States.' Neither of the other 2 applied.

Excuse me for daring to question your interpretation, but where do you see the word "or" anywhere? They must meet ALL of those requirements, not one. Your post is not true.

It says:
Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

You changed the wording in your post.

The boston bombers were never declared refugees (please proved they were) - you can't !

If fact, from your own link, they could not apply for refugee status, as they were already in the US on tourist visas.

"You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States."

Thus, getting back to my original refutation of the claim that Syrian refugees would simply be as dangerous as these two were.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Refugees are always a problem.

 

[Impenitent]

Why do wingnuts lie about refugees?

This shit's been going on since the Hessians and the Revolutionary War.

America knows that refugees aren't a threat.

Grandma weren't the 9/11 attacks and the Boston bombings carried out by immigrants?
And the latest shooting by the couple who specifically trained and planned the attacks.

No matter the percentage of guilty parties to mass numbers with no criminal intent,
I don't think you are going to convince any of these
that immigration doesn't pose a threat to public safety.

Even my friends who want a completely open border,
lock their houses up and don't just invite anyone in to help themselves.

There is nothing wrong with asking for a better screening and application process
so the people with completely lawabiding intent can access and process through normally,
while people who pose health or safety issues can be identified and get help as well.

We don't have to argue over "how much is a problem or not," to set up a system that works to screen otu problems and sovle them, without punishing the innocent, the workers or the public and taxpayers.

No. The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas, and the Boston bombers entered as tourists. (Not refugees). apples and oranges

Dear Impenitent
Last I checked it's the same immigration system that issues the Visas.
I know some lawyers who were asking how did the Chinese manage to get their workers into the
country as "masseuses" and how could the same process be used to get in immigrants from other countries.

So yes, people are using the VISA's whether for students, workers, etc.
to try to get into the country legally first, and then apply to stay here.

This is all part of the immigration system.

So we are talking about all the fruit in the basket, not trying to haggle over apples and oranges that are both included in the mix.

NOTE: When I did try to research the Chinese immigration, it seems it was common to argue for asylum because of the one child policy. For the student Visas, one types requires that the applicants are only coming in for training that isn't available in their country, and they don't work for pay in America unless it's part of the training, after which they return to their home country to apply that training. But the other commonly used Visa was the one that only the rich Chinese can afford, which is paying a high price with the agreement to set up businesses that are going to create jobs. So the wealthy Chinese are basically buying their way in. There were only a limited number of these, so the Chinese who could afford them were buying them up quickly.

You didn't account for innocent men, women, and children who are driven into the sea by warring factions with no hope of a new home, or even a port to land in.

These are the refugees we speak of, The crimes you speak of, have demonstratively not been committed by these people, and never will be.

 

[Clementine]

Liberals are clueless when it comes to preventing problems. Past liberals wanted us to leave Hitler alone despite warnings that he was evil.

 

[Tilly]

...they are children in adult bodies....

you give them that much credit?

No...I have thought about it.....if you examine how they think....it all points to them thinking like children. I mean, they can function in most ways as adults, hold jobs, raise families...but when it comes to matters of the Truth, Facts, Reality, and knowing the difference between Right and Wrong and Good and Evil...they do not have a freaking clue.......so there is something in their brains that did not seem to develop properly...how else could they think what they think.

So I believe they have a certain part of their brain that is child like....both in emotional content and reasoning ability....

Maybe they are just incredibly lazy intellectually and otherwise. It must be easier to just say anything goes.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

...they are children in adult bodies....

you give them that much credit?

No...I have thought about it.....if you examine how they think....it all points to them thinking like children. I mean, they can function in most ways as adults, hold jobs, raise families...but when it comes to matters of the Truth, Facts, Reality, and knowing the difference between Right and Wrong and Good and Evil...they do not have a freaking clue.......so there is something in their brains that did not seem to develop properly...how else could they think what they think.

So I believe they have a certain part of their brain that is child like....both in emotional content and reasoning ability....

Maybe they are just incredibly lazy intellectually and otherwise. It must be easier to just say anything goes.

I think this sums up the right v left situation quite well.

Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Clementine]

View attachment 60986

I think the truth is that most aren't really running away, they are just trying to spread Islam. They want to become the majority and turn the world into an Islamic nightmare where sharia rules.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why do wingnuts lie about refugees?

This shit's been going on since the Hessians and the Revolutionary War.

America knows that refugees aren't a threat.

Grandma weren't the 9/11 attacks and the Boston bombings carried out by immigrants?
And the latest shooting by the couple who specifically trained and planned the attacks.

No matter the percentage of guilty parties to mass numbers with no criminal intent,
I don't think you are going to convince any of these
that immigration doesn't pose a threat to public safety.

Even my friends who want a completely open border,
lock their houses up and don't just invite anyone in to help themselves.

There is nothing wrong with asking for a better screening and application process
so the people with completely lawabiding intent can access and process through normally,
while people who pose health or safety issues can be identified and get help as well.

We don't have to argue over "how much is a problem or not," to set up a system that works to screen otu problems and sovle them, without punishing the innocent, the workers or the public and taxpayers.

No. The 9/11 attackers were here on student visas, and the Boston bombers entered as tourists. (Not refugees). apples and oranges

Dear Impenitent
Last I checked it's the same immigration system that issues the Visas.
I know some lawyers who were asking how did the Chinese manage to get their workers into the
country as "masseuses" and how could the same process be used to get in immigrants from other countries.

So yes, people are using the VISA's whether for students, workers, etc.
to try to get into the country legally first, and then apply to stay here.

This is all part of the immigration system.

So we are talking about all the fruit in the basket, not trying to haggle over apples and oranges that are both included in the mix.

NOTE: When I did try to research the Chinese immigration, it seems it was common to argue for asylum because of the one child policy. For the student Visas, one types requires that the applicants are only coming in for training that isn't available in their country, and they don't work for pay in America unless it's part of the training, after which they return to their home country to apply that training. But the other commonly used Visa was the one that only the rich Chinese can afford, which is paying a high price with the agreement to set up businesses that are going to create jobs. So the wealthy Chinese are basically buying their way in. There were only a limited number of these, so the Chinese who could afford them were buying them up quickly.

You didn't account for innocent men, women, and children who are driven into the sea by warring factions with no hope of a new home, or even a port to land in.

These are the refugees we speak of, The crimes you speak of, have demonstratively not been committed by these people, and never will be.

Dear Impenitent
I didn't say that.
What the issue is:
Without proper vetting and screening,
the concern is that terrorists can enter hiding among the real victims seeking asylum
similar to how terrorists now hide behind innocent civilians, knowing the US will follow laws that they don't.

That's the issue.

As I said in my message, the solution is proper screening so there is no such threat.

I am talking about the solution, and don't think anyone is against proper screening.

Even when you let in innocent people driven into the sea,
for health reasons you still have to screen for diseases. That's just normal.

If people are so concerned, maybe we can use the Astrodome again to house
emergency refugees, so at least they can be properly screened but on safe grounds.

You act like there are only two choice?
Either treat ALL of them as threats to reject or
ALL of them as innocent people to approve?

What happened to the normal process of distinguishing the two?
Does all reason fly out the window, why is it "all or nothing"
either accept or reject them all. Really?

From what I understand, even the people opposed are only saying
that UNTIL there is a secure process, then put things on hold like a moratorium.

So let's focus on a system that will ensure security,
and there's no problem! Just DON'T do it INDISCRIMINANTLY but take the same
precautions as you would expect with troops who have to distinguish the enemy combatants
hiding among innocent civilians trying to kill the very people who are trying to help those civilians.

Just don't be stupid about it, "assuming no threat exists and people are just being political."

 

[Tommy Tainant]

View attachment 60986

Perhaps because America and the West are bombing them.

 

[emilynghiem]

What's sad Impenitent what I am hearing
is that liberals like you, who mean well, COME ACROSS as giving more benefit of the doubt to
immigrants from foreign countries WHO AREN'T EVEN CITIZENS WITH NO PROOF OF COMMITMENT, assuming they are innocent until proven guilty,

while NOT giving the same benefit to your fellow American citizens, including law abiding TAX PAYERS, but demanding insurance mandates, for example, THAT ASSUME citizens are guilty in advance of not paying for their own health care until proven they are.

When it comes to Fellow Americans, the liberals "want to play safe"
and impose REGULATIONS on law abiding citizens not found guilty of crimes yet
when it comes to
* gun rights
* health care mandates
but when it comes to when Conservatives want to play safe with
* immigration
* voting ID
then liberals throw a fit!

Why this insistence on treating people as criminals, assuming guilt until proven innocent,
when it comes to guns and health care,
but then assume people even NONCITIZENS are innocent as if there is NO THREAT of abuse
when it comes to the other issues?

I know you are trying to apply reason and compassion to people who are innocent,
and don't want to punish the innocent for the guilty,
but WHY isn't this SAME consideration given to fellow Americans and tax paying citizens
when it comes to gun rights and freedom of choice in health care.

Why the assumptions that fellow Americans are criminal until proven innocent,
but the opposite for foreign nationals who are assumed not to be a threat?

Do you see why liberals come across as anti-American?
I understand why conservatives come across as so nationalistic as to discriminate
against noncitizens.

But how is it any better to discriminate against fellow citizens treated like criminals and assumed to require regulation "in order to be on the safe side"?

No wonder liberals look crazy to conservatives.
This makes no sense at all.