Rooms Booked By Fans And Service Members For Army-Navy Game Given To Migrants

... and the person now in charge just announced yesterday that more fence WILL be built on the border after all.
Think it was a better idea a few years ago when the previous guy championed it and was denounced by the current guy.
We all learn I guess. Even the "big guy" ... eventually.

Illegal immigrants were illegal when they crossed the border without following proper immigration channels, guidelines and laws.
They broke immigration laws. I think that's illegal. It's illegal to break a law right?

Nowhere in the Constitution of our Republic did the writers use the word "Democracy".
Although some characteristics of a democracy are represented in the government seated in Washington, D.C.
Which represents a democratic republic, which governs a federated union of states, each of which in turn has its own democrat-republican government for its jurisdiction.

Go Navy Beat Army

As far as I know, it's down to fund appropriation and how that works, that's why the wall construction is happening. It's not a change in policy, it's the result of someone respecting the law, even if the end result is not something they desire. To be applauded, I think.

Besides, elections are won and lost across multiple issues, not any single issue. The US is commonly known as constitutional democracy, I don't think anyone is confused on that, are they? The US has a democratic process that determines who leads the nation. The problem with the process today, in large part, is down to people voting for personalities and not policies. We also don't expect politicians to provide anywhere near enough detail around how something will be achieved in real terms. It's all surface posturing.
 

It's a democracy, my friend. A constitutional democracy with people who have different ideas and ideals. I do not believe the last guy had an "an honest stand", on just about anything. He was voted out by the democratic process. In short, the people have spoken.

From where I sit, I see the demonization of these immigrant people. I see them used as an "other", an other we're supposed to fear and hate. It's a well-worn tactic to push an agenda through. While we're focused on other, we don't notice everything else.

But yes, to discuss in detail would be outside the forum rules, so we should leave it here.
Not a tactic, illegals are ruining our country for the sole purpose voiding American votes and providing a new voter base that is willing to trade votes for a check. That is not how a constitutional democracy operates.

We not only need to demonize these criminals, but move them back to where they came from, and allow them to go through the legal process of coming into this country. First and foremost their interaction with the US is that of a criminal action. That needs to be corrected.
 

Response to @VaughanJB

The United States is a Constitutional Republic ... and also a Constitutional Democracy

A republic is defined as a political system in which the supreme power is vested upon the citizenry that is entitled to vote for its representatives and officers responsible to them, while a democracy is defined as a government of the people and by the people exercised through elected or direct representative. It can be difficult to distinguish between a democracy and a republic, and therefore it would be rational to conclude that the United States is both a democracy and a republic.

The United States is a Republic. The key difference between a republic and a democracy is not how power is projected, but the limits to power. Both use the representational system, meaning that the citizenry is represented in the government by elected leaders. In both cases, the majority rule, but in a republic the constitution limits how the government can exercise power. These rights are inalienable and cannot be changed or altered by an elected government. The United States is a typical example of a republic state because the constitution limits the power of the government. Some rights such as the Bill of Rights, the right to vote, and the powers to amend the constitution are limited and cannot be changed by the sitting government without consulting the public directly.

The United States is a democracy, but it is not a true democracy. Instead, it is a representative democracy. The common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. A direct democracy is a system of government in which the majority have their say on every matter concerning governance. Direct democracies hold referendums each time an issue has to be decided upon because there are no elective representatives. The United States is a representative democracy, as the public elects individuals to represent them at the government level. The United States is also a constitutional democracy, meaning that the functions and roles of the government are governed by the constitution that also protects the rights and privileges of the citizenry regardless of whether they are majority or minority.

As long as the constitution continues to protect the rights of the people, the citizenry continues to vote for representatives, and the constitution limits the power of the government, the United States remains both a republic and a democracy.

EDIT: Source is WorldAtlas

Go Navy Beat Army
 
Last edited:
Not a tactic, illegals are ruining our country for the sole purpose voiding American votes and providing a new voter base that is willing to trade votes for a check. That is not how a constitutional democracy operates.

We not only need to demonize these criminals, but move them back to where they came from, and allow them to go through the legal process of coming into this country. First and foremost their interaction with the US is that of a criminal action. That needs to be corrected.

Well, personally, I think that's a nice story, but I prefer real stories, with real evidence. Conjecture, straw manning, insinuation, are the tools I see employed too often to excuse heinous, narcissistic behaviors. It costs nothing to have empathy for others, and to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes. As to the law, laws are broken each and every day in every strata of our societies. There's a case of laws being broken in court in New York right now. But it seems to me that if some people break laws, it's just written off as a witch hunt. Some are just bending the rules as they see fit, and changing things to suit a narrative.

In principle I agree, legal Asylum would be great. Now, let's join the real world where there's an estimated 11 million people involved, and try to deal with the situation. Otherwise, it's all grandstanding, imo. The furor isn't really about illegal immigrants, it's about xenophobia. How many people spending time on illegal immigrants also spend time dealing with drug dealers, people speeding, drink driving and so on? And what of the illegals in Texas who everyone loved because they work for next to nothing and do jobs others won't? That's been going on for decades.

Look, no-one is saying illegal immigrants are a good thing. No-one. In fact, there are some instances where Asylum is given on grounds I find ridiculous (that I won't mention here because it's a can or worms). I also worry that instead of staying in a country and reforming it from within, we're allowing people to simply leave, cursing a society forever. There are many facets to this. But the simple "they're illegal, so kick them out" is far too simplistic to my mind.
 
Response to @VaughanJB

The United States is a Constitutional Republic ... and also a Constitutional Democracy

A republic is defined as a political system in which the supreme power is vested upon the citizenry that is entitled to vote for its representatives and officers responsible to them, while a democracy is defined as a government of the people and by the people exercised through elected or direct representative. It can be difficult to distinguish between a democracy and a republic, and therefore it would be rational to conclude that the United States is both a democracy and a republic.

The United States is a Republic. The key difference between a republic and a democracy is not how power is projected, but the limits to power. Both use the representational system, meaning that the citizenry is represented in the government by elected leaders. In both cases, the majority rule, but in a republic the constitution limits how the government can exercise power. These rights are inalienable and cannot be changed or altered by an elected government. The United States is a typical example of a republic state because the constitution limits the power of the government. Some rights such as the Bill of Rights, the right to vote, and the powers to amend the constitution are limited and cannot be changed by the sitting government without consulting the public directly.

The United States is a democracy, but it is not a true democracy. Instead, it is a representative democracy. The common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. A direct democracy is a system of government in which the majority have their say on every matter concerning governance. Direct democracies hold referendums each time an issue has to be decided upon because there are no elective representatives. The United States is a representative democracy, as the public elects individuals to represent them at the government level. The United States is also a constitutional democracy, meaning that the functions and roles of the government are governed by the constitution that also protects the rights and privileges of the citizenry regardless of whether they are majority or minority.

As long as the constitution continues to protect the rights of the people, the citizenry continues to vote for representatives, and the constitution limits the power of the government, the United States remains both a republic and a democracy.

EDIT: Source is WorldAtlas

Go Navy Beat Army

Search the forum for "constitutional democracy" and you'll find my using the term previously. I'm well aware of the principles on which the US are built.
 
Well, personally, I think that's a nice story, but I prefer real stories, with real evidence. Conjecture, straw manning, insinuation, are the tools I see employed too often to excuse heinous, narcissistic behaviors. It costs nothing to have empathy for others, and to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes. As to the law, laws are broken each and every day in every strata of our societies. There's a case of laws being broken in court in New York right now. But it seems to me that if some people break laws, it's just written off as a witch hunt. Some are just bending the rules as they see fit, and changing things to suit a narrative.

In principle I agree, legal Asylum would be great. Now, let's join the real world where there's an estimated 11 million people involved, and try to deal with the situation. Otherwise, it's all grandstanding, imo. The furor isn't really about illegal immigrants, it's about xenophobia. How many people spending time on illegal immigrants also spend time dealing with drug dealers, people speeding, drink driving and so on? And what of the illegals in Texas who everyone loved because they work for next to nothing and do jobs others won't? That's been going on for decades.

Look, no-one is saying illegal immigrants are a good thing. No-one. In fact, there are some instances where Asylum is given on grounds I find ridiculous (that I won't mention here because it's a can or worms). I also worry that instead of staying in a country and reforming it from within, we're allowing people to simply leave, cursing a society forever. There are many facets to this. But the simple "they're illegal, so kick them out" is far too simplistic to my mind.
"How many people spending time on illegal immigrants also spend time dealing with drug dealers, people speeding, drink driving and so on?"
So, you are saying that we should deal with the affects that illegals bring and not the root cause? The things you are saying we should be spending time on are the same things illegals bring to this country.

To simplify, we should let as many squatters into our homes but only deal with the negative aspects of them in our home? Not the root cause of them being there illegally? Makes no sense. "
Now, let's join the real world where there's an estimated 11 million people involved, and try to deal with the situation. "
That thinking is exactly what Saul Alinsky wrote about on how to turn the US into a Socialist country. Force situations upon the US in small incremental pieces, to the point they can't be changed.
The solution is very simple, as simple as creating it.
We can't change the laws based on a political agenda. These people broke the law, plain and simple. They are doing it every day. That illegal activity needs to be addressed, not just 'dealt with'.
 
So, you are saying that we should deal with the affects that illegals bring and not the root cause? The things you are saying we should be spending time on are the same things illegals bring to this country.

No, I was referencing a wider argument that states that people are overly worried about immigrants breaking laws, whereas other laws that are broken - and likely have a greater impact on your everyday life - are ignored. Which indicates to me this isn't about law breaking, it's xenophobia. The people I see screaming the immigrants are illegal are seemingly happy to see some of our ex-leaders break laws left and right, with nothing but a shrug of the shoulder and a claim to conspiracy. It's hypocrisy. These people (not saying you) aren't fighting for all laws to be followed, they've chosen this particular one because of xenophobia.

To simplify, we should let as many squatters into our homes but only deal with the negative aspects of them in our home? Not the root cause of them being there illegally? Makes no sense. "

You're correct, that makes no sense. But then, it's not what I wrote. The entire country of the US isn't our "home". A square foot in New York isn't related to a square foot in Mass., not really. I suppose you could use the word "home" in very very general terms, but by insinuation here it's misleading. Lots of things go on in my country I don't care for. I don't think I belong to it any more or less. In every election, at least 40% of the electorate are disappointed, at least mostly. It's the way of things.

I also dislike the idea that all of these people are bad, and have nothing to offer. It's a fallacy. It's simply not true. In fact, countries like the US and UK have been encouraging people to emigrate to them for years. In the UK it's largely under the auspices of "IT". Complete nonsense of course, but hey, they'll work for a whole lot less. For example, Twitter had imported 300 people from abroad. There was really no need, but cheap cheap cheap.

Someone may turn up on your doorstep with nothing, but that doesn't mean they have no value, and it certainly doesn't mean they're criminals likely to commit crimes all over the place. Which is why cherry-picking negative news stories about them is intellectually dishonest. First and foremost, these are human beings.

That thinking is exactly what Saul Alinsky wrote about on how to turn the US into a Socialist country. Force situations upon the US in small incremental pieces, to the point they can't be changed.
The solution is very simple, as simple as creating it.
We can't change the laws based on a political agenda. These people broke the law, plain and simple. They are doing it every day. That illegal activity needs to be addressed, not just 'dealt with'.

I don't know what the difference between "being addressed" and "dealt with" is. What I think you mean (and I could be wrong) is you simply want them kicked out, whereas I think they should have due process.

Alinsky? Wasn't he the guy who believed ridicule was one of our most potent weapons? Not sure of his relevance here, to be honest. He's been dead for some time. The word "Socialist" is just another term that has been dressed in a halloween costume and thrown around as a trigger word. The US isn't a socialist country, likely will never be. Neither party has the goal to make it so. It's a straw man.
 
Oh yeah… they’re only human, with feelings and suffering trauma who seek refuge.

Why bother with them? Throw them aside like pieces of dirty rags… because… a mindless football game is more important.

Humanity has gone to the dogs!!

Don't forget, in some cases the situations they're fleeing have been created, or exacerbated, by our own elected officials in our name. How inconvenient that we've helped create a problem and now have to deal with it with some semblance of compassion.
 
The United States is a Federal Constitutional Republic,

By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution.
A democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority.

Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different.
 
We wouldn't be helping our own. The facts show we don't help our own, despite money given to other things. It won't happen.

Yeah, there's a naive belief that not only are illegal immigrants being given thousands of dollars, but doing so means there's no money to give to our own. It's an idea with no foundation.

The whole Socialism thing is a myth too. The richest country in the world could well afford to "look after their own", if the will was there to do it. Plenty of money is wasted on all kinds of nonsense, and if we need a new aircraft carrier you bet they'd find the money. The reason Americans don't get the help is because, overall, there isn't a will to do it. It really is that simple. Same in the UK - I see people complaining saying we should build more homes and house the British homeless before helping immigrants. In reality, there are million empty homes RIGHT NOW, and we just ignore that.

Which is why fully researching topics that are important to you is key. Far too much is simply scooped up from Social Media, or from self-serving fantasists (QAnon), and simply accepted as fact. You could end up believing just about anything.
 
Hello, Lilac. I know this is an emotive subject and will tread carefully.

The better term for this group of people is "Asylum Seekers", not illegal immigrants. There are laws in place to deal with them. While it would be ideal for them to all turn up at the same place and to nicely get in line with all their certified paperwork, this does not represent the real world. Keep in mind, this isn't a US problem, it is occurring in all of the free world at the moment.

There are indeed holes in the processes today. It is estimated there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. Background checks today only go as far as government databases and watch lists for individuals. Checks take time, and money. You're also hoping that information in these databases is up to date. I don't know what you define as a "proper background test". I know I had both criminal and financial background checks to work in the US.

I also think cherry picking a news story and using it to justify your cause is not useful. Crime is crime, and criminals should be held to account. The vast majority of crimes in the US are done by US citizens. Bad people do bad things. Desperate people do desperate things. I could link to news stories of Americans doing horrid crimes, but that kind of tit-for-tat isn't useful, imo.

Which brings me to three points. I lived in Texas for a few years, and illegal immigrants were used for all kinds of jobs, knowingly. Why? Because building houses in the Texas heat is more than most can stand. Mowing lawns is hard work with the heat and humidity, etc. Locals don't want to be waitresses and waiters. Everyone there knew it was happening, but nobody cared because these people were making money for someone else, and no-one wanted those jobs anyway.

Secondly, Mexico is a nation in free fall. This is largely fueled by Cartels. The cartels are supplying drugs across the border to satisfy a never-ending demand in the US. What goes the other way is weapons. For example, the gun trade has grown exponentially since the end of the last century. Those guns are then used to support those that are dealing the drugs. It's a dangerous dynamic that is helping to keep cartels in power in large parts of the country. Where's the uproar about that? Where is the legislation to stop weapons and ammunition being sold into Mexico? Nowhere.

Thirdly, the US is a country of immigrants. In fact, the entire basis of the US is that of interlopers. In modern times the scale is far greater for potential immigration, I get that, but the heart of the nation is one of welcoming others. It's written on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" What a wonderful message.

Okay - so what can be done then? Personally, I think we should start to concentrate on the disease, and not the symptoms. There is a reason these people are trying to go to other countries. The tale of "it's for the benefits and a free ride" isn't accurate, it's a lazy trope. Many of them are running away from real horrors. These are desperate people. What would you do if you feared for your child's life? What would you be willing to do if the only future you saw for your children was their being sucked up into a life of crime as a cartel member (the average life span of a cartel member is 5 to 10 years)? What would you do to avoid starvation? What would you do to get medical help?

Worse - foreign policies of first world countries, elected by you and me, are responsible for a lot of what has gone wrong elsewhere. Through wars, economic policies, and lack of aid, our representatives have undermined third world nations. I think we'd be far better off dealing with that, making these countries better places to live, than what we have today. No-one is going to convince me that women and men are taking their children and babies, getting into boats and sailing across sea's, in order to get a free meal.

One final thing - in the EU there is free movement of people between countries. There is crime, of course. But it works. It works brilliantly overall. The borders, which still exist, are almost completely open. People come and people go. It's been an economic boon.

But mostly, the thing I dislike the most about all this, is the nastiness of it. There is real hatred against Asylum Seekers. People are suggesting disgraceful policies to counter them. They're all painted as criminals with nothing to offer, as though they're worthless human beings. The rhetoric comes from the darkest side of our souls. This is fostered by some people in politics for votes, pandering to the worst of human nature. All I'd ask is, treat them with human respect. The US purports to be a Christian nation, run on Christian ideals - can we get an ounce of that, please? Because all I seem to come across is anger, hate, and blanket statements to denigrate people who already have nothing.

ps: I am not saying YOU or anyone else here is guilty of the worst of what I'm writing.
nicely penned - how it should be done - thanks!!
 
No, I was referencing a wider argument that states that people are overly worried about immigrants breaking laws, whereas other laws that are broken - and likely have a greater impact on your everyday life - are ignored. Which indicates to me this isn't about law breaking, it's xenophobia. The people I see screaming the immigrants are illegal are seemingly happy to see some of our ex-leaders break laws left and right, with nothing but a shrug of the shoulder and a claim to conspiracy. It's hypocrisy. These people (not saying you) aren't fighting for all laws to be followed, they've chosen this particular one because of xenophobia.



You're correct, that makes no sense. But then, it's not what I wrote. The entire country of the US isn't our "home". A square foot in New York isn't related to a square foot in Mass., not really. I suppose you could use the word "home" in very very general terms, but by insinuation here it's misleading. Lots of things go on in my country I don't care for. I don't think I belong to it any more or less. In every election, at least 40% of the electorate are disappointed, at least mostly. It's the way of things.

I also dislike the idea that all of these people are bad, and have nothing to offer. It's a fallacy. It's simply not true. In fact, countries like the US and UK have been encouraging people to emigrate to them for years. In the UK it's largely under the auspices of "IT". Complete nonsense of course, but hey, they'll work for a whole lot less. For example, Twitter had imported 300 people from abroad. There was really no need, but cheap cheap cheap.

Someone may turn up on your doorstep with nothing, but that doesn't mean they have no value, and it certainly doesn't mean they're criminals likely to commit crimes all over the place. Which is why cherry-picking negative news stories about them is intellectually dishonest. First and foremost, these are human beings.



I don't know what the difference between "being addressed" and "dealt with" is. What I think you mean (and I could be wrong) is you simply want them kicked out, whereas I think they should have due process.

Alinsky? Wasn't he the guy who believed ridicule was one of our most potent weapons? Not sure of his relevance here, to be honest. He's been dead for some time. The word "Socialist" is just another term that has been dressed in a halloween costume and thrown around as a trigger word. The US isn't a socialist country, likely will never be. Neither party has the goal to make it so. It's a straw man.
Yes, they should be sent back.
They are here illegally. First and foremost, when they show up at our doorstep they are criminals. If someone can break our laws and we ignore the laws that make us a sovereign country, then what good our our laws if they are up for interpretation by the social climate and media?
Good people break the law, that doesn't mean they get a free pass. If they are not afraid of the consequences, then they aren't afraid to break our laws.
To bring some clarity to your opinion, if you have a leaking roof, you don't keep putting buckets down, you fix the leak.
This is the same thing. We have millions of new voters that are being encouraged to come here and get free welfare, free healthcare, free food, housing, cell phones, etc. They are taxing on our healthcare system, demanding free healthcare, What they don't get for free, they steal social security numbers and start collecting checks in other people's name. They rape, pillage, steal, murder, MS13 thrives on open borders, South America countries are opening their jails, sending them to the border.
Now, you can say, 'oh well, we just have to make the best of it' or you can stand up for the country and push back at every opportunity.
Saul Alinsky is a well know Marxist. Obama and Hillary schooled under Alinsky. He wrote the blueprint on how to 'persuade' Americans to accept Socialism as a stepping stone towards Marxism. His step by step approach is playing out to the letter these days. Him being dead doesn't negate what he stood for and what he preached.
 
Here's what should have happened.

The president could have went to the Bully Pulpit and made the case of needing workers. The existing immigration mechanism could have been expanded to make it happen more quickly. Instead the door was thrown wide open, and congress just argues amongst themselves.

Our government is broken.
 
As far as I know, it's down to fund appropriation and how that works, that's why the wall construction is happening. It's not a change in policy, it's the result of someone respecting the law, even if the end result is not something they desire. To be applauded, I think.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with pressure from overrun sanctuary city mayors and governors of states whose resources are stretched to the limit. Whatever the reason, it's about time construction resumed. Could have built a wall many fold over with the amount of funds recently GIVEN away to support defending intrusions and shoring up borders of other countries. And speaking of fund appropriation, maybe look to see if Hunter and James have a contract with China for wall material ;)
 
I'm sure it has nothing to do with pressure from overrun sanctuary city mayors and governors of states whose resources are stretched to the limit. Whatever the reason, it's about time construction resumed. Could have built a wall many fold over with the amount of funds recently GIVEN away to support defending intrusions and shoring up borders of other countries. And speaking of fund appropriation, maybe look to see if Hunter and James have a contract with China for wall material ;)

Yeah, you've cobbled together a whole load of MAGA stuff there. :D

I can only go on what I know, and it was appropriation issue that has allowed this section of the wall to be built. The other is just insinuation. I'll change my mind on it if evidence to the contrary ever surfaces. Personally I think of the wall as a Monty Python skit.

Also, the US only gives money away if they're gaining something from it. The arms industry in the US is doing well right now due in part to the issues in Ukraine. Not to mention, a rival has been weakened, and once the war is over (please God) contracts for reconstruction will be extremely lucrative. It'll all come full circle, as it usually does. I'm a little surprised you're against the US battling for its interests, but hey I don't always understand the other side. Why roll over?

Mr Trump built 500 miles of wall. By March 2022, it had been breached 3,272 times. :D That's what happens when you employ 3rd century solutions to 21st century problems. It's probably a conspiracy involving Roswell. And who paid for the wall? Mexico right? Yeah.... enough said. I can't wait until the wall is built and the US still has the migrant problem. The conspiracies are going to be juicy. And are you entirely sure they're not building the wall to keep you in?
 
I don't think we'll find any middle ground here. You view, from my perspective, is shallow and simplistic in a complex world. I value human life, and I'm not swayed by ranting politicians who mostly peddle hate. It doesn't have to be this way, people are choosing to make it this way.

To bring some clarity to your opinion, if you have a leaking roof, you don't keep putting buckets down, you fix the leak.

Well, that's exactly what I've said. So I'm not sure why you've included it. Instead of dealing with the symptom, we should be employed in finding ways to stop people needing to leave their country to save themselves or the children. So.....

This is the same thing. We have millions of new voters that are being encouraged to come here and get free welfare, free healthcare, free food, housing, cell phones, etc. They are taxing on our healthcare system, demanding free healthcare, What they don't get for free, they steal social security numbers and start collecting checks in other people's name. They rape, pillage, steal, murder, MS13 thrives on open borders, South America countries are opening their jails, sending them to the border.

Only US citizens can vote. If I were still there on my work visa, I would NOT be able to vote. I'd have to become a citizen. That takes ten years. That's a heck of a long time to wait to get into the booth. The rest of your stuff is tired propaganda and I don't have anything to say other than - stop getting your news from Telegram. As I've said, there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. You seem to think they're all rapists, murderers, and worse. That's absurd and has no foundation in the real world.

Saul Alinsky is a well know Marxist. Obama and Hillary schooled under Alinsky. He wrote the blueprint on how to 'persuade' Americans to accept Socialism as a stepping stone towards Marxism. His step by step approach is playing out to the letter these days. Him being dead doesn't negate what he stood for and what he preached.

True, but his step-by-step isn't "playing out to the letter these days". He wasn't very good at playing Nostradamus. There is no move to make the US a socialist country. That's just a trigger word used by some to put fear into people, because people that are scared are more easily controlled. Obama, for example, is no longer President, and when he was, the US didn't turn Socialist.

As I say, we're not going to find a middle ground here, and I think it's time to drop the back and forth. I think we know where we each stand, and nothing good will come from discussing our differences here. Like yourself no doubt, I already can't say what I want to say due to forum rules, so how about we agree to disagree and move on? (y)
 


Back
Top