hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The ideas that a law should not be enforced if it's easy to break, or that the poor should not be expected to follow the law, are some of the dumbest ideas I've heard against enforcement of immigration policy. Having said that, It's a pretty standard mindset from the left. Its this type of mindset that leads to $9 million homes in California with a homeless encampment and a pile of human feces on the driveway out front. Or in NY and California the mass smash and grab robberies.

They shame you for saying that a law should be enforced on these poor, innocent, hard working people, and call you an -ist, and say it's -ism to expect the law to be enforced. They say it's not a slippery slope. It's just this one little issue they want flex on. Why are you so rigid in your -ist -ism?

It's the same play card they've been playing since Obama. It's why we have men swimming in women's NCAA events.

---

that's a great statement except no one is arguing that.

---

Your message board name is "hokiewolf", not "no one".

---

Hokie, isn't packgrad's point (arguing) the context of all this? I believe it is. For me, we have to different sides of the same coin:

Side one: people coming from impoverished areas wanting to improve their lives - I fully understand and empathize with them. It's a truly heart felt moment watching these families do everything they can for a better life.

Side two: the US has laws that need to be enforced. We are a nation of laws.

The question I have is: can we compartmentalize? I can!

---

I've never said that the laws shouldn't be applied. Again I AM NOT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. But I also do not believe building a big beautiful wall and stepping up enforcement of the law is going to stop illegal immigration.

Therefore packgrad (like he likes to do and argue points no one is making) is incorrect on my position as you are as well.

The definition of nativism:

the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

Is this not what most of you are defending?

---

Hokie, slow down a moment, please...

the post you are responding to never mentioned your position on anything. My post was how "I" can take an issue and see different perspectives. Then, I asked a question on whether others can compartmentalize.

I'm not sure I get the commentary (nativism) not related to my post.

Addressing your first point: we can agree to disagree on a wall. I believe we have evidence where the wall has been built has shifted the illegal crossings to other areas. Based on that, my suspicion (to been seen) supports the idea of finishing the wall.

I don't know if you have an opinion on the wall, other than what's been stated. So share, if you do...

---

hey finish the wall all you want, it's not going to work. You won't be able to build a wall tall enough or beautiful enough to keep people out.

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The ideas that a law should not be enforced if it's easy to break, or that the poor should not be expected to follow the law, are some of the dumbest ideas I've heard against enforcement of immigration policy. Having said that, It's a pretty standard mindset from the left. Its this type of mindset that leads to $9 million homes in California with a homeless encampment and a pile of human feces on the driveway out front. Or in NY and California the mass smash and grab robberies.

They shame you for saying that a law should be enforced on these poor, innocent, hard working people, and call you an -ist, and say it's -ism to expect the law to be enforced. They say it's not a slippery slope. It's just this one little issue they want flex on. Why are you so rigid in your -ist -ism?

It's the same play card they've been playing since Obama. It's why we have men swimming in women's NCAA events.

---

that's a great statement except no one is arguing that.

---

Your message board name is "hokiewolf", not "no one".

---

Hokie, isn't packgrad's point (arguing) the context of all this? I believe it is. For me, we have to different sides of the same coin:

Side one: people coming from impoverished areas wanting to improve their lives - I fully understand and empathize with them. It's a truly heart felt moment watching these families do everything they can for a better life.

Side two: the US has laws that need to be enforced. We are a nation of laws.

The question I have is: can we compartmentalize? I can!

---

I've never said that the laws shouldn't be applied. Again I AM NOT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. But I also do not believe building a big beautiful wall and stepping up enforcement of the law is going to stop illegal immigration.

Therefore packgrad (like he likes to do and argue points no one is making) is incorrect on my position as you are as well.

The definition of nativism:

the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

Is this not what most of you are defending?

---

Hokie, slow down a moment, please...

the post you are responding to never mentioned your position on anything. My post was how "I" can take an issue and see different perspectives. Then, I asked a question on whether others can compartmentalize.

I'm not sure I get the commentary (nativism) not related to my post.

Addressing your first point: we can agree to disagree on a wall. I believe we have evidence where the wall has been built has shifted the illegal crossings to other areas. Based on that, my suspicion (to been seen) supports the idea of finishing the wall.

I don't know if you have an opinion on the wall, other than what's been stated. So share, if you do...

---

hey finish the wall all you want, it's not going to work. You won't be able to build a wall tall enough or beautiful enough to keep people out.

---

Hokie, I'm truly trying to engage you in god faith. Let me take a stab at your position on the wall...

You do not believe the wall will work to limit and/or eliminate illegal crossing on our southern border.

Is that correct?
Is there anything else you want to provide on my analysis?

Again, this is not trying to pin you down and/or put you in a defensive posture. Its just trying to understand your viewpoint...

---

PackFansXL said:

---

If y'all will go back and read that article on how the previous administration finally got control of the border, you will understand several of the methods we should return to enforcing. For me, it has nothing to do with who instituted the enforcement, just that someone finally focused adequate resources on reducing the flow and they made significant progress. So much so, that even Mexico was helping stop the flow into their own country because they didn't want to get stuck with all those excess immigrants waiting around on Mexican soil.

We need to know who is entering the country legally or otherwise. Refuse admission unless they really have good reasons to be here. Manage the immigration flow to the benefit of our nation. That's why we have those laws in the first place.

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The ideas that a law should not be enforced if it's easy to break, or that the poor should not be expected to follow the law, are some of the dumbest ideas I've heard against enforcement of immigration policy. Having said that, It's a pretty standard mindset from the left. Its this type of mindset that leads to $9 million homes in California with a homeless encampment and a pile of human feces on the driveway out front. Or in NY and California the mass smash and grab robberies.

They shame you for saying that a law should be enforced on these poor, innocent, hard working people, and call you an -ist, and say it's -ism to expect the law to be enforced. They say it's not a slippery slope. It's just this one little issue they want flex on. Why are you so rigid in your -ist -ism?

It's the same play card they've been playing since Obama. It's why we have men swimming in women's NCAA events.

---

that's a great statement except no one is arguing that.

---

Your message board name is "hokiewolf", not "no one".

---

Hokie, isn't packgrad's point (arguing) the context of all this? I believe it is. For me, we have to different sides of the same coin:

Side one: people coming from impoverished areas wanting to improve their lives - I fully understand and empathize with them. It's a truly heart felt moment watching these families do everything they can for a better life.

Side two: the US has laws that need to be enforced. We are a nation of laws.

The question I have is: can we compartmentalize? I can!

---

I've never said that the laws shouldn't be applied. Again I AM NOT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. But I also do not believe building a big beautiful wall and stepping up enforcement of the law is going to stop illegal immigration.

Therefore packgrad (like he likes to do and argue points no one is making) is incorrect on my position as you are as well.

The definition of nativism:

the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

Is this not what most of you are defending? Because I feel like im calling a spade a spade here and it's bad policy for a liberal democratic nation.

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The ideas that a law should not be enforced if it's easy to break, or that the poor should not be expected to follow the law, are some of the dumbest ideas I've heard against enforcement of immigration policy. Having said that, It's a pretty standard mindset from the left. Its this type of mindset that leads to $9 million homes in California with a homeless encampment and a pile of human feces on the driveway out front. Or in NY and California the mass smash and grab robberies.

They shame you for saying that a law should be enforced on these poor, innocent, hard working people, and call you an -ist, and say it's -ism to expect the law to be enforced. They say it's not a slippery slope. It's just this one little issue they want flex on. Why are you so rigid in your -ist -ism?

It's the same play card they've been playing since Obama. It's why we have men swimming in women's NCAA events.

---

that's a great statement except no one is arguing that.

---

Your message board name is "hokiewolf", not "no one".

---

Hokie, isn't packgrad's point (arguing) the context of all this? I believe it is. For me, we have to different sides of the same coin:

Side one: people coming from impoverished areas wanting to improve their lives - I fully understand and empathize with them. It's a truly heart felt moment watching these families do everything they can for a better life.

Side two: the US has laws that need to be enforced. We are a nation of laws.

The question I have is: can we compartmentalize? I can!

---

I've never said that the laws shouldn't be applied. Again I AM NOT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. But I also do not believe building a big beautiful wall and stepping up enforcement of the law is going to stop illegal immigration.

Therefore packgrad (like he likes to do and argue points no one is making) is incorrect on my position as you are as well.

The definition of nativism:

the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

Is this not what most of you are defending?

---

Hokie, slow down a moment, please...

the post you are responding to never mentioned your position on anything. My post was how "I" can take an issue and see different perspectives. Then, I asked a question on whether others can compartmentalize.

I'm not sure I get the commentary (nativism) not related to my post.

Addressing your first point: we can agree to disagree on a wall. I believe we have evidence where the wall has been built has shifted the illegal crossings to other areas. Based on that, my suspicion (to been seen) supports the idea of finishing the wall.

I don't know if you have an opinion on the wall, other than what's been stated. So share, if you do...

---

hey finish the wall all you want, it's not going to work. You won't be able to build a wall tall enough or beautiful enough to keep people out.

---

Hokie, I'm truly trying to engage you in god faith. Let me take a stab at your position on the wall...

You do not believe the wall will work to limit and/or eliminate illegal crossing on our southern border.

Is that correct?
Is there anything else you want to provide on my analysis?

Again, this is not trying to pin you down and/or put you in a defensive posture. Its just trying to understand your viewpoint...

---

Not trying to start am argument either. But, a while back I asked everyone to lay out their ideas on changing the process. So far all I've seen is argument over the wall and who should be allowed in. Very few have addressed the process they would like to see.

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

If y'all will go back and read that article on how the previous administration finally got control of the border, you will understand several of the methods we should return to enforcing. For me, it has nothing to do with who instituted the enforcement, just that someone finally focused adequate resources on reducing the flow and they made significant progress. So much so, that even Mexico was helping stop the flow into their own country because they didn't want to get stuck with all those excess immigrants waiting around on Mexican soil.

We need to know who is entering the country legally or otherwise. Refuse admission unless they really have good reasons to be here. Manage the immigration flow to the benefit of our nation. That's why we have those laws in the first place.

---

What do you think is a fair time frame from first application to citizenship?

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The ideas that a law should not be enforced if it's easy to break, or that the poor should not be expected to follow the law, are some of the dumbest ideas I've heard against enforcement of immigration policy. Having said that, It's a pretty standard mindset from the left. Its this type of mindset that leads to $9 million homes in California with a homeless encampment and a pile of human feces on the driveway out front. Or in NY and California the mass smash and grab robberies.

They shame you for saying that a law should be enforced on these poor, innocent, hard working people, and call you an -ist, and say it's -ism to expect the law to be enforced. They say it's not a slippery slope. It's just this one little issue they want flex on. Why are you so rigid in your -ist -ism?

It's the same play card they've been playing since Obama. It's why we have men swimming in women's NCAA events.

---

that's a great statement except no one is arguing that.

---

Your message board name is "hokiewolf", not "no one".

---

Hokie, isn't packgrad's point (arguing) the context of all this? I believe it is. For me, we have to different sides of the same coin:

Side one: people coming from impoverished areas wanting to improve their lives - I fully understand and empathize with them. It's a truly heart felt moment watching these families do everything they can for a better life.

Side two: the US has laws that need to be enforced. We are a nation of laws.

The question I have is: can we compartmentalize? I can!

---

I've never said that the laws shouldn't be applied. Again I AM NOT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. But I also do not believe building a big beautiful wall and stepping up enforcement of the law is going to stop illegal immigration.

Therefore packgrad (like he likes to do and argue points no one is making) is incorrect on my position as you are as well.

The definition of nativism:

the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

Is this not what most of you are defending?

---

Hokie, slow down a moment, please...

the post you are responding to never mentioned your position on anything. My post was how "I" can take an issue and see different perspectives. Then, I asked a question on whether others can compartmentalize.

I'm not sure I get the commentary (nativism) not related to my post.

Addressing your first point: we can agree to disagree on a wall. I believe we have evidence where the wall has been built has shifted the illegal crossings to other areas. Based on that, my suspicion (to been seen) supports the idea of finishing the wall.

I don't know if you have an opinion on the wall, other than what's been stated. So share, if you do...

---

hey finish the wall all you want, it's not going to work. You won't be able to build a wall tall enough or beautiful enough to keep people out.

---

Hokie, I'm truly trying to engage you in god faith. Let me take a stab at your position on the wall...

You do not believe the wall will work to limit and/or eliminate illegal crossing on our southern border.

Is that correct?
Is there anything else you want to provide on my analysis?

Again, this is not trying to pin you down and/or put you in a defensive posture. Its just trying to understand your viewpoint...

---

Not trying to start am argument either. But, a while back I asked everyone to lay out their ideas on changing the process. So far all I've seen is argument over the wall and who should be allowed in. Very few have addressed the process they would like to see.

---

Steve, I fully understand your question and believe we should be talking about it; however, with the onslaught of people (illegals) crossing our border, "I" believe we should be talking about protecting the border first.

Start watching the news... they are saying we have another big group heading our way! Think about this: we are having significant inflation while wages being lowered because (in general) these people will work for less.

I feel for the US Citizens that will lose their jobs to these illegals! It's a sad situation for "OUR" people.

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The ideas that a law should not be enforced if it's easy to break, or that the poor should not be expected to follow the law, are some of the dumbest ideas I've heard against enforcement of immigration policy. Having said that, It's a pretty standard mindset from the left. Its this type of mindset that leads to $9 million homes in California with a homeless encampment and a pile of human feces on the driveway out front. Or in NY and California the mass smash and grab robberies.

They shame you for saying that a law should be enforced on these poor, innocent, hard working people, and call you an -ist, and say it's -ism to expect the law to be enforced. They say it's not a slippery slope. It's just this one little issue they want flex on. Why are you so rigid in your -ist -ism?

It's the same play card they've been playing since Obama. It's why we have men swimming in women's NCAA events.

---

that's a great statement except no one is arguing that.

---

Your message board name is "hokiewolf", not "no one".

---

Hokie, isn't packgrad's point (arguing) the context of all this? I believe it is. For me, we have to different sides of the same coin:

Side one: people coming from impoverished areas wanting to improve their lives - I fully understand and empathize with them. It's a truly heart felt moment watching these families do everything they can for a better life.

Side two: the US has laws that need to be enforced. We are a nation of laws.

The question I have is: can we compartmentalize? I can!

---

I've never said that the laws shouldn't be applied. Again I AM NOT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. But I also do not believe building a big beautiful wall and stepping up enforcement of the law is going to stop illegal immigration.

Therefore packgrad (like he likes to do and argue points no one is making) is incorrect on my position as you are as well.

The definition of nativism:

the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

Is this not what most of you are defending?

---

Hokie, slow down a moment, please...

the post you are responding to never mentioned your position on anything. My post was how "I" can take an issue and see different perspectives. Then, I asked a question on whether others can compartmentalize.

I'm not sure I get the commentary (nativism) not related to my post.

Addressing your first point: we can agree to disagree on a wall. I believe we have evidence where the wall has been built has shifted the illegal crossings to other areas. Based on that, my suspicion (to been seen) supports the idea of finishing the wall.

I don't know if you have an opinion on the wall, other than what's been stated. So share, if you do...

---

hey finish the wall all you want, it's not going to work. You won't be able to build a wall tall enough or beautiful enough to keep people out.

---

Hokie, I'm truly trying to engage you in god faith. Let me take a stab at your position on the wall...

You do not believe the wall will work to limit and/or eliminate illegal crossing on our southern border.

Is that correct?
Is there anything else you want to provide on my analysis?

Again, this is not trying to pin you down and/or put you in a defensive posture. Its just trying to understand your viewpoint...

---

Not trying to start am argument either. But, a while back I asked everyone to lay out their ideas on changing the process. So far all I've seen is argument over the wall and who should be allowed in. Very few have addressed the process they would like to see.

---

Steve, I fully understand your question and believe we should be talking about it; however, with the onslaught of people (illegals) crossing our border, "I" believe we should be talking about protecting the border first.

Start watching the news... they are saying we have another big group heading our way! Think about this: we are having significant inflation while wages being lowered because (in general) these people will work for less.

I feel for the US Citizens that will lose their jobs to these illegals! It's a sad situation for "OUR" people.

---

I don't disagree with you at all. But, I think both things are achievable with the proper system. I'm trying to discuss the process

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

If y'all will go back and read that article on how the previous administration finally got control of the border, you will understand several of the methods we should return to enforcing. For me, it has nothing to do with who instituted the enforcement, just that someone finally focused adequate resources on reducing the flow and they made significant progress. So much so, that even Mexico was helping stop the flow into their own country because they didn't want to get stuck with all those excess immigrants waiting around on Mexican soil.

We need to know who is entering the country legally or otherwise. Refuse admission unless they really have good reasons to be here. Manage the immigration flow to the benefit of our nation. That's why we have those laws in the first place.

---

What do you think is a fair time frame from first application to citizenship?

---

https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/the-fastest-countries-in-the-world-to-become-a-citizen/

I found that link when I researched how fast it can be done in other countries. Malaysia takes 12 years. Russia takes 3 years. A few countries offer programs as short as 2 years. Most require time, commitment, language, understanding of their constitution, and economic pursuits. Given all the opportunities in the US, we should require significant commitments to become a US citizen. I don't think 5 years is too long.

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

If y'all will go back and read that article on how the previous administration finally got control of the border, you will understand several of the methods we should return to enforcing. For me, it has nothing to do with who instituted the enforcement, just that someone finally focused adequate resources on reducing the flow and they made significant progress. So much so, that even Mexico was helping stop the flow into their own country because they didn't want to get stuck with all those excess immigrants waiting around on Mexican soil.

We need to know who is entering the country legally or otherwise. Refuse admission unless they really have good reasons to be here. Manage the immigration flow to the benefit of our nation. That's why we have those laws in the first place.

---

What do you think is a fair time frame from first application to citizenship?

---

https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/the-fastest-countries-in-the-world-to-become-a-citizen/

I found that link when I researched how fast it can be done in other countries. Malaysia takes 12 years. Russia takes 3 years. A few countries offer programs as short as 2 years. Most require time, commitment, language, understanding of their constitution, and economic pursuits. Given all the opportunities in the US, we should require significant commitments to become a US citizen. I don't think 5 years is too long.

---

Yea, I don't understand why the US has to be the end all of immigration. For all the screaming and yelling, we still take in more immigrants per year than any other country. But, we need to do more?

Yes, we can clean up the process a bit. We have a parent of a girl on our soccer team that is from Columbia. She is a citizen, but her sister hasn't gotten hers Had been here for 8 years, gotten an education here, started a life, and stayed out of trouble. She, in my opinion, deserves citizenship.

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

If y'all will go back and read that article on how the previous administration finally got control of the border, you will understand several of the methods we should return to enforcing. For me, it has nothing to do with who instituted the enforcement, just that someone finally focused adequate resources on reducing the flow and they made significant progress. So much so, that even Mexico was helping stop the flow into their own country because they didn't want to get stuck with all those excess immigrants waiting around on Mexican soil.

We need to know who is entering the country legally or otherwise. Refuse admission unless they really have good reasons to be here. Manage the immigration flow to the benefit of our nation. That's why we have those laws in the first place.

---

What do you think is a fair time frame from first application to citizenship?

---

https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/the-fastest-countries-in-the-world-to-become-a-citizen/

I found that link when I researched how fast it can be done in other countries. Malaysia takes 12 years. Russia takes 3 years. A few countries offer programs as short as 2 years. Most require time, commitment, language, understanding of their constitution, and economic pursuits. Given all the opportunities in the US, we should require significant commitments to become a US citizen. I don't think 5 years is too long.

---

Yea, I don't understand why the US has to be the end all of immigration. For all the screaming and yelling, we still take in more immigrants per year than any other country. But, we need to do more?

Yes, we can clean up the process a bit. We have a parent of a girl on our soccer team that is from Columbia. She is a citizen, but her sister hasn't gotten hers Had been here for 8 years, gotten an education here, started a life, and stayed out of trouble. She, in my opinion, deserves citizenship.

---

Regardless of what the expedited time is for each country, that article also said it can take much longer than the optimal time for a wide range of reasons. Money, of course, greases the skids.

I agree, it sounds like the sister should have gotten hers by now. Bureaucratic SNAFU?

---

Quote:

---

It has been a banner week for the attempt by progressives to reengineer basic biological realities before our eyes. The same week that a man presenting himself as a woman named Lia Thomas outcompetes the nation's best female athletes at the NCAA Division 1 swimming championships, USA Today has named Rachel Levine, another man now presenting himself as female, as one of its "Women of the Year."

So the honoring of Rachel Levine is no surprise. Levine serves as the assistant secretary of health and human services in the Biden administration. In addition to enforcing one of the nation's strictest lockdowns and passing off to his successor a fiasco in vaccine distribution, Levine mandated that nursing homes accept Covid-infected patients . . . and then removed his own mother from one:

Quote:

---

Levine's order, on the other hand, mandated that all nursing-care facilities "must" accept individuals "who have had the Covid-19 virus." There was no mention of each facility's capability to deal with infectious patients.

The results were as plain as they are painful. By the time the Senate confirmed Levine's nomination to be the assistant U.S. secretary of health, Pennsylvania had surpassed 12,500 nursing-home deaths and was the largest state where nursing-home and care-facility deaths account for over 50 percent of statewide COVID fatalities.

The nursing-home order was issued in March 2020. Yet Pennsylvanians were shocked to learn in May that Levine's 95-year-old mother had been moved out of a nursing home and into a hotel.

---

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The ideas that a law should not be enforced if it's easy to break, or that the poor should not be expected to follow the law, are some of the dumbest ideas I've heard against enforcement of immigration policy. Having said that, It's a pretty standard mindset from the left. Its this type of mindset that leads to $9 million homes in California with a homeless encampment and a pile of human feces on the driveway out front. Or in NY and California the mass smash and grab robberies.

They shame you for saying that a law should be enforced on these poor, innocent, hard working people, and call you an -ist, and say it's -ism to expect the law to be enforced. They say it's not a slippery slope. It's just this one little issue they want flex on. Why are you so rigid in your -ist -ism?

It's the same play card they've been playing since Obama. It's why we have men swimming in women's NCAA events.

---

that's a great statement except no one is arguing that.

---

Your message board name is "hokiewolf", not "no one".

---

Hokie, isn't packgrad's point (arguing) the context of all this? I believe it is. For me, we have to different sides of the same coin:

Side one: people coming from impoverished areas wanting to improve their lives - I fully understand and empathize with them. It's a truly heart felt moment watching these families do everything they can for a better life.

Side two: the US has laws that need to be enforced. We are a nation of laws.

The question I have is: can we compartmentalize? I can!

---

I've never said that the laws shouldn't be applied. Again I AM NOT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. But I also do not believe building a big beautiful wall and stepping up enforcement of the law is going to stop illegal immigration.

Therefore packgrad (like he likes to do and argue points no one is making) is incorrect on my position as you are as well.

The definition of nativism:

the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

Is this not what most of you are defending?

---

Hokie, slow down a moment, please...

the post you are responding to never mentioned your position on anything. My post was how "I" can take an issue and see different perspectives. Then, I asked a question on whether others can compartmentalize.

I'm not sure I get the commentary (nativism) not related to my post.

Addressing your first point: we can agree to disagree on a wall. I believe we have evidence where the wall has been built has shifted the illegal crossings to other areas. Based on that, my suspicion (to been seen) supports the idea of finishing the wall.

I don't know if you have an opinion on the wall, other than what's been stated. So share, if you do...

---

hey finish the wall all you want, it's not going to work. You won't be able to build a wall tall enough or beautiful enough to keep people out.

---

Hokie, I'm truly trying to engage you in god faith. Let me take a stab at your position on the wall...

You do not believe the wall will work to limit and/or eliminate illegal crossing on our southern border.

Is that correct?
Is there anything else you want to provide on my analysis?

Again, this is not trying to pin you down and/or put you in a defensive posture. Its just trying to understand your viewpoint...

---

Not trying to start am argument either. But, a while back I asked everyone to lay out their ideas on changing the process. So far all I've seen is argument over the wall and who should be allowed in. Very few have addressed the process they would like to see.

---

Steve, I fully understand your question and believe we should be talking about it; however, with the onslaught of people (illegals) crossing our border, "I" believe we should be talking about protecting the border first.

Start watching the news... they are saying we have another big group heading our way! Think about this: we are having significant inflation while wages being lowered because (in general) these people will work for less.

I feel for the US Citizens that will lose their jobs to these illegals! It's a sad situation for "OUR" people.

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve, I fully understand your question and believe we should be talking about it; however, with the onslaught of people (illegals) crossing our border, "I" believe we should be talking about protecting the border first.

Start watching the news... they are saying we have another big group heading our way! Think about this: we are having significant inflation while wages being lowered because (in general) these people will work for less.

I feel for the US Citizens that will lose their jobs to these illegals! It's a sad situation for "OUR" people.

---

What jobs are illegals taking from Americans? What are these job sectors where illegals make less and drive down wages? I can tell you there are two! One is farming and the other is janitorial services. All other job sectors are unaffected. You know who bores the brunt in those two sectors of these illegal immigrants taking jobs? Illegal and legal immigrants who came into the US years before.

Now again, I'm not advocating for illegal immigration. I'm just providing information to dispel these popular myths.

---

PackFansXL said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve, I fully understand your question and believe we should be talking about it; however, with the onslaught of people (illegals) crossing our border, "I" believe we should be talking about protecting the border first.

Start watching the news... they are saying we have another big group heading our way! Think about this: we are having significant inflation while wages being lowered because (in general) these people will work for less.

I feel for the US Citizens that will lose their jobs to these illegals! It's a sad situation for "OUR" people.

---

What jobs are illegals taking from Americans? What are these job sectors where illegals make less and drive down wages? I can tell you there are two! One is farming and the other is janitorial services. All other job sectors are unaffected. You know who bores the brunt in those two sectors of these illegal immigrants taking jobs? Illegal and legal immigrants who came into the US years before.

Now again, I'm not advocating for illegal immigration. I'm just providing information to dispel these popular myths.

---

One important correction.

---

High Travoltage said:

---

Our laborers not affected by the fact that if someone hires them it would cost the company more than paying an illegal immigrant under the table? Dont forget construction...

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I fail to understand the "nativism" screaming given the current state of our country. We have so many issues in this country right now, and putting the US first has been given a negative connotation. Why?

Almost every other country in the world looks out for their own interest first. But, when there is the first sign of trouble, the US is expected to come to the rescue, whether it be financial or via military.

In the process, we are stacking up debt at alarming levels. We have an ever growing homeless problem, particularly among veterans. With that, a huge mental health issue in this country. And, we have a wide open border to any and all that want to come right now.

I'm all for helping the world. But, we need to clean up our own house first before we invite company. At least get the living room and den cleaned up! Then we can talk about sending billions around the world and opening up the borders to reasonable immigration.

If that's nativism, whatever!

---

Why make economic prerequisites to opening up the borders to reasonable immigration, when immigration has a net positive effect on the economy?

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

caryking said:

---

BTW, should these illegals get US citizenship?

Also, what does everyone think about Russia invading Ukraine? Is Russia invading their National borders? Is this an attack on their Nationalism?

I believe the illegals coming in (roughly 1.5-2.0 million in 2021) is an attack on our Nationalism!!! An argument can be made that this is a war on America.


D-day (WW2) had about 156K allied forces hit the ground on the first days. February 2022 had 158K illegals hit our boarder.

---

Are migrants rolling across our borders with tanks? And destroying cities? Killing civilians? Is this a serious analogy you're making? Do you know any migrants? I know quite a few. One is now (thanks to DACA) a radiologist. Another is a large animal vet. Another works at a food truck. They all pay taxes and contribute to society yet you think they are attacking our borders? Sheesh man.

---

fentanyl kills citizens and it's coming across the border with illegal immigrants!! So, based on your points, then yes, its a war!!!

Scratch that below...

It really doesn't make a difference if I know illegal immigrants or not, does it? But, since you are wanting to swing a big dick, when would you like to compare the amount of personal money you've given to people impoverished? I feel very comfortable putting that on the table with you. I hope you will beat me by the way you talk...

---

Are migrants shoving fentanyl down the throats of US citizens? Are they forcing US citizens to become addicted?

Fentanyl is a horrendous problem, I agree with you there, but to pretend that migrants are the sole cause, or even a major cause at all is quite the feat of mental gymnastics that my brain is not flexible enough to perform.

---

Yeah, its like some fool saying NC Christmas tree farmers are a problem because some bad people in the NC Mountains are cooking meth right next to their properties.

---

For someone who expresses extreme hatred for mean-spirited tweets by Trump, you have learned to channel the technique quite well. I believe you're better than this.

---

i mean, the comment itself was very Trumpian -- which was not surprising given its source. You know, generalize a whole group of people and label them with the worst of the lot.

ETA: And mean spirited tweets are the very essence of Twitter. But its just not what a President should be doing.

---

Chem and the other person...

I don't think I said Mexicans and other people are bad people. I have said that we are getting fentanyl from people crossing the border. Where else are we getting the stuff? Based on that and the other person statements that's a war on the US.

It appear that you guys are always looking at things from a racial/ethnic stand point. I'm not. I am pointing out things that are a problem for this country (my opinion). You don't have to like my opinion; however, you also don't have to act like an ass when responding to my opinion.

Just give your opinion and move on... It's funny, you're acting just like the person that you (probably) wanted off the board...

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I fail to understand the "nativism" screaming given the current state of our country. We have so many issues in this country right now, and putting the US first has been given a negative connotation. Why?

Almost every other country in the world looks out for their own interest first. But, when there is the first sign of trouble, the US is expected to come to the rescue, whether it be financial or via military.

In the process, we are stacking up debt at alarming levels. We have an ever growing homeless problem, particularly among veterans. With that, a huge mental health issue in this country. And, we have a wide open border to any and all that want to come right now.

I'm all for helping the world. But, we need to clean up our own house first before we invite company. At least get the living room and den cleaned up! Then we can talk about sending billions around the world and opening up the borders to reasonable immigration.

If that's nativism, whatever!

---

Why make economic prerequisites to opening up the borders to reasonable immigration, when immigration has a net positive effect on the economy?

---

Illegal immigration into this country cost over 82 Billion per year. How is that a net positive?

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

caryking said:

---

mrcpack17 said:

---

caryking said:

---

BTW, should these illegals get US citizenship?

Also, what does everyone think about Russia invading Ukraine? Is Russia invading their National borders? Is this an attack on their Nationalism?

I believe the illegals coming in (roughly 1.5-2.0 million in 2021) is an attack on our Nationalism!!! An argument can be made that this is a war on America.


D-day (WW2) had about 156K allied forces hit the ground on the first days. February 2022 had 158K illegals hit our boarder.

---

Are migrants rolling across our borders with tanks? And destroying cities? Killing civilians? Is this a serious analogy you're making? Do you know any migrants? I know quite a few. One is now (thanks to DACA) a radiologist. Another is a large animal vet. Another works at a food truck. They all pay taxes and contribute to society yet you think they are attacking our borders? Sheesh man.

---

fentanyl kills citizens and it's coming across the border with illegal immigrants!! So, based on your points, then yes, its a war!!!

Scratch that below...

It really doesn't make a difference if I know illegal immigrants or not, does it? But, since you are wanting to swing a big dick, when would you like to compare the amount of personal money you've given to people impoverished? I feel very comfortable putting that on the table with you. I hope you will beat me by the way you talk...

---

Are migrants shoving fentanyl down the throats of US citizens? Are they forcing US citizens to become addicted?

Fentanyl is a horrendous problem, I agree with you there, but to pretend that migrants are the sole cause, or even a major cause at all is quite the feat of mental gymnastics that my brain is not flexible enough to perform.

---

Yeah, its like some fool saying NC Christmas tree farmers are a problem because some bad people in the NC Mountains are cooking meth right next to their properties.

---

For someone who expresses extreme hatred for mean-spirited tweets by Trump, you have learned to channel the technique quite well. I believe you're better than this.

---

i mean, the comment itself was very Trumpian -- which was not surprising given its source. You know, generalize a whole group of people and label them with the worst of the lot.

ETA: And mean spirited tweets are the very essence of Twitter. But its just not what a President should be doing.

---

Chem and the other person...

I don't think I said Mexicans and other people are bad people. I have said that we are getting fentanyl from people crossing the border. Where else are we getting the stuff? Based on that and the other person statements that's a war on the US.

It appear that you guys are always looking at things from a racial/ethnic stand point. I'm not. I am pointing out things that are a problem for this country (my opinion). You don't have to like my opinion; however, you also don't have to act like an ass when responding to my opinion.

Just give your opinion and move on... It's funny, you're acting just like the person that you (probably) wanted off the board...

---

Btw, why are you so worried about fentanyl? It's not killing guys like us who are law abiding. It's killing law breakers who are overdosing from illegally taking pills/ heroin / etc.

I mean, that's sad, but you've continually said it's vitally important to follow the law in this discussion. If these victims only followed the law (amd really, how dayumed difficult is it to follow the law and avoid heroin), there wouldn't be a problem.

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

packgrad said:

---

The ideas that a law should not be enforced if it's easy to break, or that the poor should not be expected to follow the law, are some of the dumbest ideas I've heard against enforcement of immigration policy. Having said that, It's a pretty standard mindset from the left. Its this type of mindset that leads to $9 million homes in California with a homeless encampment and a pile of human feces on the driveway out front. Or in NY and California the mass smash and grab robberies.

They shame you for saying that a law should be enforced on these poor, innocent, hard working people, and call you an -ist, and say it's -ism to expect the law to be enforced. They say it's not a slippery slope. It's just this one little issue they want flex on. Why are you so rigid in your -ist -ism?

It's the same play card they've been playing since Obama. It's why we have men swimming in women's NCAA events.

---

that's a great statement except no one is arguing that.

---

Your message board name is "hokiewolf", not "no one".

---

Hokie, isn't packgrad's point (arguing) the context of all this? I believe it is. For me, we have to different sides of the same coin:

Side one: people coming from impoverished areas wanting to improve their lives - I fully understand and empathize with them. It's a truly heart felt moment watching these families do everything they can for a better life.

Side two: the US has laws that need to be enforced. We are a nation of laws.

The question I have is: can we compartmentalize? I can!

---

I've never said that the laws shouldn't be applied. Again I AM NOT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. But I also do not believe building a big beautiful wall and stepping up enforcement of the law is going to stop illegal immigration.

Therefore packgrad (like he likes to do and argue points no one is making) is incorrect on my position as you are as well.

The definition of nativism:

the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

Is this not what most of you are defending?

---

Hokie, slow down a moment, please...

the post you are responding to never mentioned your position on anything. My post was how "I" can take an issue and see different perspectives. Then, I asked a question on whether others can compartmentalize.

I'm not sure I get the commentary (nativism) not related to my post.

Addressing your first point: we can agree to disagree on a wall. I believe we have evidence where the wall has been built has shifted the illegal crossings to other areas. Based on that, my suspicion (to been seen) supports the idea of finishing the wall.

I don't know if you have an opinion on the wall, other than what's been stated. So share, if you do...

---

hey finish the wall all you want, it's not going to work. You won't be able to build a wall tall enough or beautiful enough to keep people out.

---

Hokie, I'm truly trying to engage you in god faith. Let me take a stab at your position on the wall...

You do not believe the wall will work to limit and/or eliminate illegal crossing on our southern border.

Is that correct?
Is there anything else you want to provide on my analysis?

Again, this is not trying to pin you down and/or put you in a defensive posture. Its just trying to understand your viewpoint...

---

Not trying to start am argument either. But, a while back I asked everyone to lay out their ideas on changing the process. So far all I've seen is argument over the wall and who should be allowed in. Very few have addressed the process they would like to see.

---

Steve, I fully understand your question and believe we should be talking about it; however, with the onslaught of people (illegals) crossing our border, "I" believe we should be talking about protecting the border first.

Start watching the news... they are saying we have another big group heading our way! Think about this: we are having significant inflation while wages being lowered because (in general) these people will work for less.

I feel for the US Citizens that will lose their jobs to these illegals! It's a sad situation for "OUR" people.

---

What jobs are illegals taking from Americans? What are these job sectors where illegals make less and drive down wages? I can tell you there are two! One is farming and the other is janitorial services. All other job sectors are unaffected. You know who bores the brunt in those two sectors of these illegal immigrants taking jobs? Illegal immigrants who came into the US years before.

Now again, I'm not advocating for illegal immigration. I'm just providing information to dispel these popular myths.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Now imagine if your wife was from say Nicaragua or Somalia or Thailand and didn't know our language amd nuances. And someone who was not helped by a loving American husband, but someone who also was not well versed in the language, or someone looking to make $$ off of them.
And that they went in not trusting the US government to do the right thing, but fearful that it was a trap and that they'd show up for help amd be exported.

Yeah, it's easy as citizens to be self righteous about following the law…but in real life, it's much more difficult

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Now imagine if your wife was from say Nicaragua or Somalia or Thailand and didn't know our language amd nuances. And someone who was not helped by a loving American husband, but someone who also was not well versed in the language, or someone looking to make $$ off of them.
And that they went in not trusting the US government to do the right thing, but fearful that it was a trap and that they'd show up for help amd be exported.

Yeah, it's easy as citizens to be self righteous about following the law…but in real life, it's much more difficult

---

RWW, as I have said… thank you for following the process as hard as it's been. The process we have doesn't surprise me as being bureaucratic, even though I haven't experienced it.

Chem, your comment about being self righteous is so you…. I don't think this board is full of what you described. I think people here see and understand situations like RWW; however, they also see the 150K + illegals crossing our border every month.

For me, we have talked so long about creating universal legislation, in congress, that never goes anywhere. Now, I'm hoping, that it goes nowhere until the border wall is built, whether it stops illegal immigration or not! Show the effort of trying to control it, then immigration process will have my support, and probably from most here that you call self righteous!

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

As someone who is going through this right now, immigration is a longggggg and expensive process. I'll try to make this shorter then it should be.

March 1, 2021, my wife(Canadian) and I started her green card paperwork process. There are multiple different options. We decided to go with the one that was $1,000 more even though she wouldn't be able to go back home until the process was completed. We were informed that by doing the quicker option, it would be done in 4 months. In that case, she was on with not being able to leave. Needless to say, that was another government lie.

August, 2021 still waiting on what was supposed to be a 4 month process. We got a call that we had an appointment to attend so we did. We drove 5 hours round trip for a 2 minute appointment. The appointment consisted of my wife standing against a wall, having her picture taken and then putting her hands on a screen to have her fingerprints done. That cost us 5 hours of a day. Something that could have been done at the local police department.

November 2021. Immigration attorneys wrote a joint letter to USGIS concerning cases. Basically, they ask them to approve the travel and work documents for those of us who it was obvious would have no issues. So, 9 months after the process started, my wife was actually able to go see her family again and find work.

March 2022. Recieved an email from our attorney that the hope was we would be scheduled for our interview by May/June 2022 but that it could be as late as April 2023. For a process that was suppose to take a out 4 months, we are looking at a minimum of 13 months if we are lucky.

Cost of this so far is right at $12,000. Along with this, we has to submit a sufficient amount of photos and text communication to prove we were real. 22,000 pages of text and 1,500 pictures is what we sent. We had 3 credit checks run on both of us, we had to state every address we ever lived at, date and year we lived there. Every job we've ever had, our family history, criminal background check and countless other items. Our file is around 3 inches thick with paperwork.

I say all this to say this. Before this process, I couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't do it the legal way. After this process, I fully understand why people do it illegally. It is absolutely crazy some of the things these people ask for. Then, when they get what they ask for, they say they want more and more. The time spent is crazy but the money it cost if even crazier. That's where it hurts the most. Regardless, I know some don't care, laws are laws right, but in the end, as someone who is going through it, I can understand the side that does it illegally.

---