• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Oh Look....

F1fan

Veteran Member
Seems like conservatives are helping the illegals by calling attention to thier situation.
Was it helping these people when the Trump administration separated children from their parents, and did so with inadequate record keeping and many of these children are still lost?
Whether people enter the USA through a checkpoint and file for asylum or do it illegally there iss till due process by law. Conservatives don't care how these people are treated. It's all a dire situation and the USA needs to be ethical in how they treat these people through the legal system.

But of course it's racist to demand anyone in a liberal state do anything about the situation.
:rolleyes:
I have n o idea what you are trying to say.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is no plan or resources for them in Texas or surety of safe transition to America for these people, but you're fine telling them to keep coming and calling people against it racist.

Send them to the people who are responsible for this humanitarian disaster. Liberals in DC.
Read some history. It wasn't the liberals who exploited a whole continent for a hundred or so years, suppressed democracy, deposed democratic governments and humanitarian reforms, who installed vicious dictators to suppress the masses and insure the majority of the states' treasure went North to American corporations.
The poverty and gang violence these people are fleeing are directly attributable to American business interests, ie: Republican interests.

We broke it.
So who should fix it, or pay for it?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
The majority of the conservatives I've known over the years certainly are as you described, but there are a few who are actually civil, decent, and compassionate human beings. I'm not a conservative any more, but I was one for over twenty-five years, and I'm now of the opinion that any conservatives who are civil, decent, and compassionate human beings are the exception rather than the rule.
I have some conservative friends and none of them really talk about politics any more. They are good people and I suspect the party has disintegrated and left them abandoned.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I doubt that these "pro-life" conservatives' compassion would even extend to the unborn among the undocumented immigrants.
They certainly showed no compassion when seperating children from their families and locking them in "detention facilities," many never to see their parents again. It was cruel, punative, 'expedient terrorism'.
 
Last edited:

F1fan

Veteran Member
There is no plan or resources for them in Texas or surety of safe transition to America for these people, but you're fine telling them to keep coming and calling people against it racist.
By law anyone seeking asylum in the USA MUST be allowed the option to enter and file. It has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, it is law. Trump suspended this for a while during the pandemic, but that is over now. The racism comes is the rhetoric by republicans who vilify those coming from south of the border.

Send them to the people who are responsible for this humanitarian disaster. Liberals in DC.
Odd you call it a humanitarian disaster and then make a joke about where to send them. Almost as if you lack compassion.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
There is no plan or resources for them in Texas or surety of safe transition to America for these people, but you're fine telling them to keep coming and calling people against it racist.

Send them to the people who are responsible for this humanitarian disaster. Liberals in DC.

If you bother to read the article, a lot of these people did have destinations they wanted to get to. Tennessee, Miami, New Jersey. Etc. Which the rides may have even helped.

But we can seriously just throw them where we feel like because screw liberal metropolises? It's their fault these people wanted to come to america?

Come now. I'm also pretty sure I didn't call anyone racist, but if I did, I'll remove it.
 
Last edited:

Sgt. Pepper

Well-Known Member
I have some conservative friends and none of them really talk about politics any more. They are good people and I suspect the party has disintegrated and left them abandoned.

I used to have some conservative friends too, but they began to turn their back on me after I refused to vote for Trump and support him politically. I was also shunned and ostracized in my very staunchly conservative family as well. It was a painful experience for me, that's for sure. I know a few ex-conservatives like myself who eventually left the Republican Party after Trump hijacked it and took control of it, and their experiences of being shunned, disparaged, and ostracized for leaving the Republican Party are similar to mine.
 
Last edited:

esmith

Veteran Member
Because there is no actual plan of action, or cooperative coordination between the States to ensure a safe transfer of this already vulnerable to exploitation population?

Or did I miss the part where Abott (and AZ Gov) called the New York and DC Govs and said "how do we get this done?".

Edit: this whole ploy is political grandstanding at the expense of treating these people as expendable.
Seen like you might be a Biden supporter; so let me ask you a question. Where is your outrage with this administration transporting the undocumented (illiegals) to various parts of the country in the middle of the night!
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
What happened to the compassionate liberals? Apparently they don't want them?

Maybe it would have been nice if they were asked the liberal states rather than dimping them without asking and saying your problem now.

Yet it seems the compassionate liberals have not followed the lead of the inhumain conservatives.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
What happened to the compassionate liberals? Apparently they don't want them?

I am starting to wonder why illegal immigrants are enticed by certain laws to come to America (free education, covid relief checks, etc). Could it be that some day they will become citizens, and then vote for the party that gave them favors? That is tantamount to bribery.

Immigration policies of the US have always been to get workers or skills that we don't have. "Give me your tired, your poor" was written on the Statue of Liberty by the artist, and it is not national policy. Project Paperclip brought Nazi scientists into the US (and into the CIA, which resulted in the deaths of many covert agents). Chinese workers were allowed to stay even if they failed to strike gold (gold rush), if they would build railroads.

The Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882, restricted Chinese laborers for 10 years. The fear was that there were more Chinese than Americans, and we could get out voted and our country taken by democratic elections.

Plessy Vs. Ferguson, 1896, upheld separate but equal. Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 1954 overturned that with "separate is necessarily unequal." As "then attorney" Thurgood Marshall pointed out, the schools didn't provide equal educations.

Some areas of the US are affected greatly by illegal immigration, while others not. In Los Angeles, where immigration is intense, grafitti, vandalism, and theft are skyrocketing. Schools have classrooms of teachers using sign language to communicate to 31 students in 31 languages. They watch a lot of movies and learn very little. California throws money at their problems, with the most money spent on public education and almost the worst test scores in the nation.

Law enforcement in California is also terrible. In the past year, the Orange County Sheriff almost doubled its force. Now, instead of one officer saying "what am I supposed to do about it (crime)?," we get it in stereo. . .two officers saying "what am I supposed to do about it." Homeless shoplifters are too expensive to jail or prosecute, and cannot be fined (they have no money).

Many homeless people like a lifestyle of stealing bicycles from little girls, swapping parts to make them unrecognizable, and then selling them. It is easier than work.

We lump the homeless into one category when we make shelters. So, the pregnant teen is housed with violent rapists. We have to recognize that among the homeless are criminals, and they have to be monitored and separated.

Since everyone has to work for a living, it doesn't seem like a punishment for people to have to work for a living, instead of burglarizing those who are away from home working.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Maybe it would have been nice if they were asked the liberal states rather than dimping them without asking and saying your problem now.

Yet it seems the compassionate liberals have not followed the lead of the inhumain conservatives.

Notice that the economy collapsed under W. Bush, when bank loans of 125% of the value of property defaulted when land prices dropped (forcing foreclosure). Derivatives (land traded like stock on the market) added to the collapse. Outsourced factories and jobs added to the collapse. All along, W. Bush maintained that non-interference was required by economic theory. At some point, the government does have to intervene. Homeless people should somehow be put into abandoned houses and apartments. Fallow farms could be farmed by the hoards of hungry homeless. Much of the problem is when the haves have too much and the have-nots have nothing. It is a matter of redistributing wealth.

Obama insisted that if he bails out corporations, they should not have business as usual. Do-nothing corporate presidents had to be replaced if they expected bail-out money. Money-losers, like Pontiac, should be (and were) discontinued as a requirement for a bailout. By fixing the companies, they almost paid back the US government for their loans, and now are among the most productive companies.

Bailout money was given without regard to ownership. The truth is that no one knows just how much of America is owned by foreign millionaires. All is traded on public stock exchanges and anyone can invest. So, as we were fighting Osama bin Laden, it could be that the bin Laden family was getting bailed out.

For example, Cerberus (a private investment group of about 100 millionaires run by a junk bond king) owned more than 1/3 of Chrysler and more than 1/3 of General Motors. Renault (a French car company) owned about half of Chrysler. So, a bail out of Chrysler was really a bail out of France. Furthermore, rescuing US pensioners was not a good plan, since none of the Chryslers were manufactured in the US. One of the few car companies manufacturing in the US was Honda of America (a Japanese company).

We should have the right to find out who owns Cerberus, but that was proprietary info, and even the president wasn't allowed to know, though he felt obligated to bail them out to prevent the domino effect from wiping out all businesses in the world.

Sometimes compassionate decisions beat the conservative economic ideas. Consider a man who can't afford to fix an infected leg, so the leg must be amputated, so he loses his job, and without a job, loses his wife, who takes the kids when she leaves, and he loses his house and his car, and his furniture. He winds up homeless on the streets, starving.

Consider the same man who can afford a simple cheap antibiotic and avoid all of those outcomes.

Ben Franklin said "lost a shoe for lack of a nail," "lost a horse for lack of a shoe." Sometimes the consequences of our actions exasserbate the problem, and the cheap way is the compassionate way.
 
Last edited:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
What is interesting is how these States changed their tunes when they have to personally deal with illegal immigration.

I am going to quote myself from another thread dealing with this issue:

I may be misreading your links (it's somewhat tricky to disentangle the bias from Fox's articles), but it seems less hypocritical in that the NYC and DC mayors are considering it a humanitarian crisis for the immigrants versus the language from Abbott who considers it a humanitarian crisis for his communities.

If we consider the usual rhetoric from the two parties, we can consider this simply business as usual: concerns for the well being of immigrants versus concerns over immigration impacting American communities.

That's not to say DC and NYC aren't engaging in NIMBY politics, but hopefully the concern will be helpful for the immigrants who are human and therefore worthy of humanitarian effort.

Poor Little Washington DC Mayor

Essentially, I don't think "these states" are necessarily changing their tunes, just maybe slowing down the tempo. They are still concerned about immigrants, but are unable to provide necessary support for them all at once and are seeking resources.
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
Having no plan on helping the immigrants is crappy. They should've had a plan on how to help them once they arrived. The politicians cleary didn't care about the wellbeing of these immigrants
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Having no plan on helping the immigrants is crappy. They should've had a plan on how to help them once they arrived. The politicians cleary didn't care about the wellbeing of these immigrants
I wouldn't lump all politicians into the same basket. Which party is supporting DACA and working to keep it alive?

Hint: it's not the political party that used to claim is was about family values.
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
I wouldn't lump all politicians into the same basket. Which party is supporting DACA and working to keep it alive?

Hint: it's not the political party that used to claim is was about family values.
The ones who sent the folk there with no plan were the ones i was talking about
 
Top