New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

What am I missing with southern border crossings?

EatTheRich

President
I call Goodwin on the town commie.

Not letting people into the country because they're diseased is not immoral. It is in fact moral to protect your population from degradation both medical and financial. People used to come sick and held in quarantine if they could be cured and sent back to Europe if they couldn't.
I have no problem with restrictions based on disease. Of course it would be a lot easier to stop the diseased from coming in if the healthy were routinely allowed in after a quick health check, instead of forced into squalid concentration camps cheek to jowl with the sick.
 
I have no problem with restrictions based on disease. Of course it would be a lot easier to stop the diseased from coming in if the healthy were routinely allowed in after a quick health check, instead of forced into squalid concentration camps cheek to jowl with the sick.
Not a concession that matters. We need an immigration moratorium like we had between 1924 and 1965. It was when disparate cultures coalesced and became one by minimizing diversity. Diversity is an existential threat. Always has been. It did the Romans (and many others) in.
 

Drumcollie

Ending Racism with or without Hillary
I have no problem with restrictions based on disease. Of course it would be a lot easier to stop the diseased from coming in if the healthy were routinely allowed in after a quick health check, instead of forced into squalid concentration camps cheek to jowl with the sick.
You should have not let Joe cheat. BTW people are routine allowed in, it's called legal immigration. My mother did it, so can everyone else.
 
You should have not let Joe cheat. BTW people are routine allowed in, it's called legal immigration. My mother did it, so can everyone else.
@EatTheRich

There is no reason moral, ethical or what have you that we have to take anybody whatsoever. There is no imperative at all to have no borders let alone let even one person immigrate here. That's not a thing. Planned UN replacement migration is.
 

EatTheRich

President
Not a concession that matters. We need an immigration moratorium like we had between 1924 and 1965. It was when disparate cultures coalesced and became one by minimizing diversity. Diversity is an existential threat. Always has been. It did the Romans (and many others) in.
Diversity is good, which is why when the country took my approach to immigration (1861-1924 with a few exceptions) it made rapid technological and social progress with tangible economic benefits for the workers, while when it abruptly shifted to your approach the result was depression within a few years
 

EatTheRich

President
You should have not let Joe cheat. BTW people are routine allowed in, it's called legal immigration. My mother did it, so can everyone else.
Legal immigration used to be: you showed up here, you were a legal immigrant. Now it’s: if you’re married to a citizen by birth you can get a temporary visa within about 4 years.
 

EatTheRich

President
@EatTheRich

There is no reason moral, ethical or what have you that we have to take anybody whatsoever. There is no imperative at all to have no borders let alone let even one person immigrate here. That's not a thing. Planned UN replacement migration is.
The economy would collapse if not for immigration, therefore immigration will happen whether you like living in a multiracial country or not. The ONLY question is whether the people who are required by market forces to immigrate here have equal rights or not.
 
The economy would collapse if not for immigration, therefore immigration will happen whether you like living in a multiracial country or not. The ONLY question is whether the people who are required by market forces to immigrate here have equal rights or not.
Lies. From 1924 to 1965 we had an immigration moratorium and the economy was just fine.
 
Diversity is good, which is why when the country took my approach to immigration (1861-1924 with a few exceptions) it made rapid technological and social progress with tangible economic benefits for the workers, while when it abruptly shifted to your approach the result was depression within a few years
There were plenty of big economic downturns in the U.S. None had anything to do with lack of migration.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Last edited:

Zam-Zam

Senator
Top