Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, they live on it. Been doing it for decades. When one turns 18 they have another or their female child has one and continues the cycle. They pack a lot of people inside of a single house to do it but they do it.anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
Catch and release doesn't work.
Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.
The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.
Anchor Baby = a child born to illegals who becomes American simply because of where he was born.They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law. In was passed in 1996.Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
I am struggling to understand your argument.
We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
- Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
- Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
- Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
- Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- Social Security
- Welfare
Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants. States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
- Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
- Schooling
- Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?" BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
You are wrong.
That child collects government benefits. The illegal parent lives on those benefits.
Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
.
Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit?"
Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries. The federal government is limited:
"Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
Read all of it.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
.
You know me better than that. If you have something to say, spit it out. Don't expect me to do your work for you.
I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.
.
You can't use something that isn't there. Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs. However a wall is not just for drugs. A wall is not just for illegals. A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers. They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road. In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world. Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
I'm very aware of that. However supply and demand comes into play. If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up. If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down. If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply. Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases. Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.
Ray, are you dense? As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.
Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.
All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts. So, let me ask you: Where do you get your Rights from?
Why do you REALLY want a wall?
You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board. You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.
As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country.
Opioid products have been around my entire life. When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available. The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get. In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life. Coke? Here and there but very few had it.
Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day. But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.
So, you're contention is that a wall will keep the government from creating drug addicts. That's a stretch there buddy.
No, my contention is that slowing down the drug availability in the US will help in less addicts becoming addicts in the first place. The government doesn't create addicts.
As someone who works in social services, I've explained this to you and you know damn well you're lying.
What in the Hell do you think makes Americans take so many drugs that they consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply? Most of those drugs are legally dispensed. If you want a discussion, you and I need to covering new ground. It's getting tiresome to come here every day and rehash the same stuff. You need some new material.
Do you have ANY facts?
No, they live on it. Been doing it for decades. When one turns 18 they have another or their female child has one and continues the cycle. They pack a lot of people inside of a single house to do it but they do it.anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.
The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.
The Citizenship And Immigration Problems Of Anchor Babies And SurrogacyAnchor Baby = a child born to illegals who becomes American simply because of where he was born.They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law. In was passed in 1996.I am struggling to understand your argument.
We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
- Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
- Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
- Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
- Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- Social Security
- Welfare
Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants. States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
- Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
- Schooling
- Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?" BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
You are wrong.
That child collects government benefits. The illegal parent lives on those benefits.
No offense, but you are wasting our time because you are not informed enough to give a valid opinion.
People called those kids anchor babies because the right USED TO allege that the baby "anchored" the parents into the U.S. and prevented them from being deported... then they got exposed as it was a lie.
The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.
ok it's the 14th amendment not the 17th, oopsie.Roughly one out of every 12 newborns in the United States can be classified as a so-called ‘anchor baby.’ Pew research shows that some 295,000 children were born to undocumented immigrants in 2013, while the number of pregnant 'birth tourists' who come here legally to take advantage of the fact that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States was recently estimated at 36,000 a year. That right to citizenship is guaranteed by the 14thAmendment. There is a problem here. Who is paying for the costs involved?
In the U.S., as I pointed out previously, “birth tourism” is a flourishing business. Pregnant women fly here, stay at special hotels and pay sometimes extraordinarily high costs for “concierge services” designed to facilitate the birth of their children. The benefit to the family is that the child is thereby eligible to claim U.S. social welfare, be educated at much lower cost and obtain certain medical benefits for life here.
In summary, anchor babies, birth tourism and surrogacy are pushing the envelope of what are the rights of citizenship in North America. People are rightfully becoming more concerned about those who take advantage of “free and easy” citizenship, so their children can benefit from social, educational and medical programs.
The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
I'm not afraid of anything. YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall. There has been a wall or fence down there in parts for decades but only NOW does it create a prison for Me by protecting me from illegals getting in??? How do you proffer such GARBAGE with a straight face??? You've lost all credibility here.
If I put a fence and a gate around my property, it doesn't make ME a prisoner, boob! I can come and go as I please and I can leave this country any time I want.
Trump sees a great beautiful wall that will stop illegal immigration. What democrats see is a 212 mile 4 billion dollar wall that's 6 feet hiring than existing reinforced fencing that will most probably not even be complete during Trump's term in office. That will leave the border barriers in 1800 miles of border the same as they are now.
The real problems in immigration such as immigration law, illegal entry through ports of entry, 10 million illegal immigrants living in the country, millions overstaying visas, a 300,000 case backlog in immigration court, and an E-Verify system that's uselessly to most employers all untouched.
Ray, are you dense? As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.
Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.
All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts. So, let me ask you: Where do you get your Rights from?
Why do you REALLY want a wall?
You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board. You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.
As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country.
Opioid products have been around my entire life. When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available. The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get. In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life. Coke? Here and there but very few had it.
Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day. But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.
So, you're contention is that a wall will keep the government from creating drug addicts. That's a stretch there buddy.
No, my contention is that slowing down the drug availability in the US will help in less addicts becoming addicts in the first place. The government doesn't create addicts.
As someone who works in social services, I've explained this to you and you know damn well you're lying.
What in the Hell do you think makes Americans take so many drugs that they consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply? Most of those drugs are legally dispensed. If you want a discussion, you and I need to covering new ground. It's getting tiresome to come here every day and rehash the same stuff. You need some new material.
Do you have ANY facts?
I have used opioid products since a child as many other Americans. Very little addiction problems. Why? Because even if you got addicted, there were few if any places to continue that addiction.
If you had a problem getting off the drug, you addressed your practitioner and they provided a plan to wean you off. Today? Just ask the guy two doors down to get you a fix. How is that possible? By the availability of the narcotics.
I've known several people who lost their life to these drugs; one of them a family member. And in every case, if the drugs were not readily available, they would likely be alive today.
It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .
If democrats welcomed illegal immigration or didn't want a barrier against, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants. I think your claims are based on supposition, not facts.The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.
If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.
The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.
They were for it before they were against it.If that was case, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants. I think your claim is based on supposition, not facts.The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.
If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.
The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.
One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law. In was passed in 1996.The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
I am struggling to understand your argument.
We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
- Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
- Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
- Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
- Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- Social Security
- Welfare
Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants. States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
- Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
- Schooling
- Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down. The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful. Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings. What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out. They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them. But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?
Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics. They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket. Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).
When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions. After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared. A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
Did it dawn on you at any point that the caravans were financed by rich guys like Trump, Soros, and Murdoch? Are you really that naive that you don't know when they are playing you?
requires 2/3 majority of both houses in congress to change the 17th amendment. Or 2/3 of the states doing some legislature redo of the entire constitution.anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.
So let's get rid of birthright citizenship. I see no justification for it. It would beat the hell out of a big dumb wall.
They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law. In was passed in 1996.The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
Yes, the government is the people. We elect representatives to carry out our will. And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me. It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
I am struggling to understand your argument.
We elect representatives to carry out our will. When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests. Then I'd have a dog in the fight. BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
- Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
- Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
- Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
- Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- Social Security
- Welfare
Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants. States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
- Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
- Schooling
- Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?" BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.What IS
"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution
Also see this:
Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
Dblack is talking about letting everyone into the country.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
.
Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit?"
Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries. The federal government is limited:
"Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
Read all of it.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
.
You know me better than that. If you have something to say, spit it out. Don't expect me to do your work for you.
I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.
.
As usual, you like to play mind games, prove nothing and make accusations that sound more like projection. I don't speak cryptic and if you see a troll, it's the one you see in your mirror.
Do you have anything relevant to say about this subject OR are you just trying to prove that nobody can out - troll you?
Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
Dblack is talking about letting everyone into the country.
No he's not. He's talking about letting everyone in unless there's a reason to keep them out - a reason besides the irrational fears of rednecks.
Of course, your definition of "irrational fear" means "sensible objection." You have further declined to explain why we have any obligation to let these aspiring immigrants into the country.
No you haven't. You've simply assumed it.Of course, your definition of "irrational fear" means "sensible objection." You have further declined to explain why we have any obligation to let these aspiring immigrants into the country.
I've explained that to you several times in this thread alone. Unfortunately, you're too stupid and ignorant to comprehend.
