Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Yep, it's a supply and demand problem. I don't understand the sentiment of not wanting people to immigrate to America (not pointing at you, just puzzled by it). That would be the best way to put the US in decline globally.

---

Hokie, I just want to understand where you're coming from. When you say a demand for immigration, what do you mean? Also, do you think we should we also allow the unskilled and illiterate into the US?

---

See two posts above

To answer your second question, the US needs ditch diggers too.

---

Okay, but then who ends up footing the bill for their education and and skill training? As for demand, don't we have a low participation rate of employment within our own citizenship right now?

I don't think anybody is against immigration. It's just how do we go about it? I don't think it's as simple as saying, as long as you go through these doors, everyone come in. I'm all for immigration, but they need to earn their way here and be a benefit to the country, not a burden.

We have almost 600,000 homeless in this country right now, many of whom are veterans. I would rather spend money getting them back into the workplace before spending on another country's cast-offs.

---

What is your definition of earning it? And how does that differ from mass immigration from Europe? Most of those folks where unskilled and illiterate. Seemed to turn out ok in the long run, no?

---

Proving that you have a means of taking care of yourself and providing for family if included. Not coming here with nothing in your pocket and having to use government money to aquire skills for working. Staying out of trouble with the laws of our country and not being a negative. How many countries in this world will give citizenship to somebody that shows up with no skills and broke.

---

Where is this impression coming from that Mexican immigrants come here to break the law and sit around getting fat and living off the government?

Come hang out with me on job sites for a few days or ride down East in NC with Migrant Ministries. That impression would go away real quick-like. Those "no-skills" immigrants are keenly interested in capitalism and opportunity and learning a trade or skill or even providing unskilled labor to pay their bills. They're grinding to make a buck at a higher clip than born-and-raised Americans. What "government money" are they using to "acquire skills?"

As a rule people don't risk their family's future often and their own life getting here and then immediately become wastes of oxygen once they do.

---

Your whole post is really noise in the grand scheme of things.

Civ, I think if you would look at the legalized Mexicans, they are moving to the America First agenda. They are American loving citizens, probably more so than a lot of our population. I think if you look at the illegal Mexicans (or people that come across the Mexican border), they are not necessarily moochers off the government; however, they do clog the system at the sacrifice of citizens.

We do have illegals that come here for no good. What percent is that? Probably very little. Let's not make this about the noise of people; rather, about the process of immigration.

The border situation is starting to backfire politically on Biden's handlers. The more illegals flowing in, the more legal Hispanic residents are turning to the GOP. Happened first in Virginia, but as many as four Rio Grande Valley congressional districts are trending GOP for the first time ever, and Hispanic women in particular down in south Texas, are stepping forward as GOP candidates for Congress.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Yep, it's a supply and demand problem. I don't understand the sentiment of not wanting people to immigrate to America (not pointing at you, just puzzled by it). That would be the best way to put the US in decline globally.

---

Hokie, I just want to understand where you're coming from. When you say a demand for immigration, what do you mean? Also, do you think we should we also allow the unskilled and illiterate into the US?

---

See two posts above

To answer your second question, the US needs ditch diggers too.

---

Okay, but then who ends up footing the bill for their education and and skill training? As for demand, don't we have a low participation rate of employment within our own citizenship right now?

I don't think anybody is against immigration. It's just how do we go about it? I don't think it's as simple as saying, as long as you go through these doors, everyone come in. I'm all for immigration, but they need to earn their way here and be a benefit to the country, not a burden.

We have almost 600,000 homeless in this country right now, many of whom are veterans. I would rather spend money getting them back into the workplace before spending on another country's cast-offs.

---

What is your definition of earning it? And how does that differ from mass immigration from Europe? Most of those folks where unskilled and illiterate. Seemed to turn out ok in the long run, no?

---

Proving that you have a means of taking care of yourself and providing for family if included. Not coming here with nothing in your pocket and having to use government money to aquire skills for working. Staying out of trouble with the laws of our country and not being a negative. How many countries in this world will give citizenship to somebody that shows up with no skills and broke.

---

Where is this impression coming from that Mexican immigrants come here to break the law and sit around getting fat and living off the government?

Come hang out with me on job sites for a few days or ride down East in NC with Migrant Ministries. That impression would go away real quick-like. Those "no-skills" immigrants are keenly interested in capitalism and opportunity and learning a trade or skill or even providing unskilled labor to pay their bills. They're grinding to make a buck at a higher clip than born-and-raised Americans. What "government money" are they using to "acquire skills?"

As a rule people don't risk their family's future often and their own life getting here and then immediately become wastes of oxygen once they do.

---

Your whole post is really noise in the grand scheme of things.

Civ, I think if you would look at the legalized Mexicans, they are moving to the America First agenda. They are American loving citizens, probably more so than a lot of our population. I think if you look at the illegal Mexicans (or people that come across the Mexican border), they are not necessarily moochers off the government; however, they do clog the system at the sacrifice of citizens.

We do have illegals that come here for no good. What percent is that? Probably very little. Let's not make this about the noise of people; rather, about the process of immigration.

---

I was responding specifically to Steve's concerns about immigrants' skill level when they arrive, and their alleged propensity to use government money to acquire skills.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Yep, it's a supply and demand problem. I don't understand the sentiment of not wanting people to immigrate to America (not pointing at you, just puzzled by it). That would be the best way to put the US in decline globally.

---

Hokie, I just want to understand where you're coming from. When you say a demand for immigration, what do you mean? Also, do you think we should we also allow the unskilled and illiterate into the US?

---

See two posts above

To answer your second question, the US needs ditch diggers too.

---

Okay, but then who ends up footing the bill for their education and and skill training? As for demand, don't we have a low participation rate of employment within our own citizenship right now?

I don't think anybody is against immigration. It's just how do we go about it? I don't think it's as simple as saying, as long as you go through these doors, everyone come in. I'm all for immigration, but they need to earn their way here and be a benefit to the country, not a burden.

We have almost 600,000 homeless in this country right now, many of whom are veterans. I would rather spend money getting them back into the workplace before spending on another country's cast-offs.

---

What is your definition of earning it? And how does that differ from mass immigration from Europe? Most of those folks where unskilled and illiterate. Seemed to turn out ok in the long run, no?

---

Proving that you have a means of taking care of yourself and providing for family if included. Not coming here with nothing in your pocket and having to use government money to aquire skills for working. Staying out of trouble with the laws of our country and not being a negative. How many countries in this world will give citizenship to somebody that shows up with no skills and broke.

---

Where is this impression coming from that Mexican immigrants come here to break the law and sit around getting fat and living off the government?

Come hang out with me on job sites for a few days or ride down East in NC with Migrant Ministries. That impression would go away real quick-like. Those "no-skills" immigrants are keenly interested in capitalism and opportunity and learning a trade or skill or even providing unskilled labor to pay their bills. They're grinding to make a buck at a higher clip than born-and-raised Americans. What "government money" are they using to "acquire skills?"

As a rule people don't risk their family's future often and their own life getting here and then immediately become wastes of oxygen once they do.

---

Your whole post is really noise in the grand scheme of things.

Civ, I think if you would look at the legalized Mexicans, they are moving to the America First agenda. They are American loving citizens, probably more so than a lot of our population. I think if you look at the illegal Mexicans (or people that come across the Mexican border), they are not necessarily moochers off the government; however, they do clog the system at the sacrifice of citizens.

We do have illegals that come here for no good. What percent is that? Probably very little. Let's not make this about the noise of people; rather, about the process of immigration.

---

I was responding specifically to Steve's concerns about immigrants' skill level when they arrive, and their alleged propensity to use government money to acquire skills.

---

And I was responding to you…. No reason to go there..

I think we've gotten in the weeds a bit by comparing what is happening currently with this administration, and what we all want.

The current situation is allowing a lot of bad people to cross our border. Yes, there are plenty of good people looking for the American opportunity. But, there are a lot of people taking advantage of the situation as well. Word spread quickly about "free money." And, look at how beneficial it's been for the cartels.

Just like you guys, I talk to immigrants who are here both on visas and legally. They are not happy with the current setup, because it is allowing people in that give the good ones a bad name. There is opportunity for many, but the US doesn't have endless resources either.

Yes the current situation is bureaucratic and inconsistent. It needs to be fixed. But, it doesn't need to be easy either. The easier it is, the closer to what we have now it's going to be. There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

My thought has always been, you register, you pass a thorough background check and you receive a temporary status. After, say 6 months to a year, if you have proven income and have not committed serious crimes. Then you are granted citizenship.

What are your thoughts?

Debating as to whether or not it would interest any here to know what the process is actually like for us.

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Your seeing the current desperation because the legal means of entry are not available. Again, if you fix the legal means and allow for more efficient entry, you reduce the chaos at the border, ie families sending children over by themselves.

Do we not understand that the desperation to use illegal means is there because the legal means is not readily available. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It's part of the current picture.

Sending money is not the same as opportunity. The opportunity is greater in the US then in their current country. That's not a bad thing to me. I want to live in a country that people want to migrate to.

This is the same with low income areas. Money doesn't equal opportunity

---

Hokie, when people use the term "America First", that's what they mean. The citizens of America are first!!!

It is a privilege to be an American Citizen. I am confident the process for legal immigration is completely bureaucratic (just look at dealing with any government agency); so, I would support a simpler process. Additionally, I would limit the number of acceptance per year.

Also, you would see more National support of this change if we just build the damn wall! I believe the biggest bid and ask between opposing opinions is: what do you do first? Border Security or immigration changes.

We just spent 14B on Ukraine (the bill passed last week) without much to support our border. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for this bill, so, I don't trust congress to do anything right! Those people do not support the will of their constituents and we keep voting those hacks into office!

---

I assume everyone here supports the America First act:

The Protect America First Act will:

Enact a 4-year moratorium on immigration and accelerate the time between apprehension and deportation.

Ensure the safe return of unaccompanied alien children, reduces human trafficking, increases deportation for criminal aliens, and ends chain migration.

Expedite removal of illegal aliens from 3 months to 30 days.

Build the Wall and name it after President Donald J. Trump

Cut off Funding for Sanctuary Cities

Support Local Law Enforcement in their execution of immigration policy

Empower ICE to detain and deport violent criminal aliens
Revive President Trump's Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy

Rescind President Biden's Open Borders Immigration Executive Orders

Revoke Deferred Action on Child Aliens (DACA) and Deferred Action on Parental Accountability (DAPA)
Remove funding for Central and South American Countries whose citizens violate this Act by migrating here illegally.

Is that correct?

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Debating as to whether or not it would interest any here to know what the process is actually like for us.

---

I'm curious...

Steve Videtich said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Debating as to whether or not it would interest any here to know what the process is actually like for us.

---

I'm curious...

---

Me too

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Debating as to whether or not it would interest any here to know what the process is actually like for us.

---

Very simple, we have laws. Come through the legally established gates. Its easy. If something else is desired, change the laws. As I say that look at the shi$show in Congress.

Werewolf said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Debating as to whether or not it would interest any here to know what the process is actually like for us.

---

Very simple, we have laws. Come through the legally established gates. Its easy. If something else is desired, change the laws. As I say that look at the shi$show in Congress.

---

This response shows how uninformed you truly are on this subject.

Werewolf said:

---

^ When I attend and pay for a movie at the theatre I expect all patrons to pay for a ticket There's a gate and the price of the ticket pre-determined and we all pay to see the show. Why allow massive #'s in the side doors and back door to attend? The movie theatre is getting some sort of a kickback or benefit not visible to all. What happens when the doors are flung open for days on end? Those paying for the ticket soon have to pay more.......as 2nd and 3rd theatres must show the same show. Who pays for the 2nd and 3rd theatre? Those paying the ticket do. What happens when hoodlums also make it through those side and back doors?

Same could be said for attendance at Carter Finley....and throw in the Mexican drug cartel as scalpers with counterfeit tickets resulting in illegals standing in aisles and blocking your view.

Like Trump said ........a beautiful wall and with a beautiful huge door in the middle.............just come in the legal way. When non-payers come in illegally what's the incentive for a customer to come through the gate/big door?

---

Your analogy is terrible but if we go with it, unless you legally immigrated to the US you didn't "pay for the movie."

You were lucky enough to be born in the movie theater and get to watch all the movies you want for free but enjoy talking down your nose about what other patrons need to do to gain access to the theater, like you earned your theater privilege.

Legal immigration should not be a years-long, expensive as hell test that immigrants have to pass to gain access to an exclusive club. There are too many immigrants that are ready, willing, and able to come here and work their asses off for that to be the appropriate approach.

Steve Videtich said:

---

I think we've gotten in the weeds a bit by comparing what is happening currently with this administration, and what we all want.

The current situation is allowing a lot of bad people to cross our border. Yes, there are plenty of good people looking for the American opportunity. But, there are a lot of people taking advantage of the situation as well. Word spread quickly about "free money." And, look at how beneficial it's been for the cartels.

Just like you guys, I talk to immigrants who are here both on visas and legally. They are not happy with the current setup, because it is allowing people in that give the good ones a bad name. There is opportunity for many, but the US doesn't have endless resources either.

Yes the current situation is bureaucratic and inconsistent. It needs to be fixed. But, it doesn't need to be easy either. The easier it is, the closer to what we have now it's going to be. There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

My thought has always been, you register, you pass a thorough background check and you receive a temporary status. After, say 6 months to a year, if you have proven income and have not committed serious crimes. Then you are granted citizenship.

What are your thoughts?

---

I think 6 -12 months after entry is too short for citizenship. The current policy of 5 years seems about right. For legal entry only.

packofwolves said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I think we've gotten in the weeds a bit by comparing what is happening currently with this administration, and what we all want.

The current situation is allowing a lot of bad people to cross our border. Yes, there are plenty of good people looking for the American opportunity. But, there are a lot of people taking advantage of the situation as well. Word spread quickly about "free money." And, look at how beneficial it's been for the cartels.

Just like you guys, I talk to immigrants who are here both on visas and legally. They are not happy with the current setup, because it is allowing people in that give the good ones a bad name. There is opportunity for many, but the US doesn't have endless resources either.

Yes the current situation is bureaucratic and inconsistent. It needs to be fixed. But, it doesn't need to be easy either. The easier it is, the closer to what we have now it's going to be. There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

My thought has always been, you register, you pass a thorough background check and you receive a temporary status. After, say 6 months to a year, if you have proven income and have not committed serious crimes. Then you are granted citizenship.

What are your thoughts?

---

I think 6 -12 months after entry is too short for citizenship. The current policy of 5 years seems about right. For legal entry only.

---

I would be good for anything between here and there.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Debating as to whether or not it would interest any here to know what the process is actually like for us.

---

Very simple, we have laws. Come through the legally established gates. Its easy. If something else is desired, change the laws. As I say that look at the shi$show in Congress.

---

This response shows how uninformed you truly are on this subject.

---

Actually, I want to understand what werewolf said shows how uninformed he is. I say that because all he said is what we all should do whether we like the laws or not.

So, please enlighten me on how uninformed he is…

Steve Videtich said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I think we've gotten in the weeds a bit by comparing what is happening currently with this administration, and what we all want.

The current situation is allowing a lot of bad people to cross our border. Yes, there are plenty of good people looking for the American opportunity. But, there are a lot of people taking advantage of the situation as well. Word spread quickly about "free money." And, look at how beneficial it's been for the cartels.

Just like you guys, I talk to immigrants who are here both on visas and legally. They are not happy with the current setup, because it is allowing people in that give the good ones a bad name. There is opportunity for many, but the US doesn't have endless resources either.

Yes the current situation is bureaucratic and inconsistent. It needs to be fixed. But, it doesn't need to be easy either. The easier it is, the closer to what we have now it's going to be. There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

My thought has always been, you register, you pass a thorough background check and you receive a temporary status. After, say 6 months to a year, if you have proven income and have not committed serious crimes. Then you are granted citizenship.

What are your thoughts?

---

I think 6 -12 months after entry is too short for citizenship. The current policy of 5 years seems about right. For legal entry only.

---

I would be good for anything between here and there.

---

If 5 years is the law, then we, as a country, should enforce the law as written. That said, I would be fine with shortening the time; however, it's not a passionate issue for me, so, I will not be standing on the steps of congress looking for change. If one is passionate, then I will not oppose the length of time. I say go for it..

I do believe, we as a country, would be far more supportive of legal immigration law changes when the border is secure (I guess we need to define secure).

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

^ When I attend and pay for a movie at the theatre I expect all patrons to pay for a ticket There's a gate and the price of the ticket pre-determined and we all pay to see the show. Why allow massive #'s in the side doors and back door to attend? The movie theatre is getting some sort of a kickback or benefit not visible to all. What happens when the doors are flung open for days on end? Those paying for the ticket soon have to pay more.......as 2nd and 3rd theatres must show the same show. Who pays for the 2nd and 3rd theatre? Those paying the ticket do. What happens when hoodlums also make it through those side and back doors?

Same could be said for attendance at Carter Finley....and throw in the Mexican drug cartel as scalpers with counterfeit tickets resulting in illegals standing in aisles and blocking your view.

Like Trump said ........a beautiful wall and with a beautiful huge door in the middle.............just come in the legal way. When non-payers come in illegally what's the incentive for a customer to come through the gate/big door?

---

Your analogy is terrible but if we go with it, unless you legally immigrated to the US you didn't "pay for the movie."

You were lucky enough to be born in the movie theater and get to watch all the movies you want for free but enjoy talking down your nose about what other patrons need to do to gain access to the theater, like you earned your theater privilege.

Legal immigration should not be a years-long, expensive as hell test that immigrants have to pass to gain access to an exclusive club. There are too many immigrants that are ready, willing, and able to come here and work their asses off for that to be the appropriate approach.

---

Civ, again, your post is just noise… You are now taking the analogy and nuancing it to death. The spirit of the analogy was fine; please don't go where you did…

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Your seeing the current desperation because the legal means of entry are not available. Again, if you fix the legal means and allow for more efficient entry, you reduce the chaos at the border, ie families sending children over by themselves.

Do we not understand that the desperation to use illegal means is there because the legal means is not readily available. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It's part of the current picture.

Sending money is not the same as opportunity. The opportunity is greater in the US then in their current country. That's not a bad thing to me. I want to live in a country that people want to migrate to.

This is the same with low income areas. Money doesn't equal opportunity

---

Hokie, when people use the term "America First", that's what they mean. The citizens of America are first!!!

It is a privilege to be an American Citizen. I am confident the process for legal immigration is completely bureaucratic (just look at dealing with any government agency); so, I would support a simpler process. Additionally, I would limit the number of acceptance per year.

Also, you would see more National support of this change if we just build the damn wall! I believe the biggest bid and ask between opposing opinions is: what do you do first? Border Security or immigration changes.

We just spent 14B on Ukraine (the bill passed last week) without much to support our border. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for this bill, so, I don't trust congress to do anything right! Those people do not support the will of their constituents and we keep voting those hacks into office!

---

I assume everyone here supports the America First act:

The Protect America First Act will:

Enact a 4-year moratorium on immigration and accelerate the time between apprehension and deportation.

Ensure the safe return of unaccompanied alien children, reduces human trafficking, increases deportation for criminal aliens, and ends chain migration.

Expedite removal of illegal aliens from 3 months to 30 days.

Build the Wall and name it after President Donald J. Trump

Cut off Funding for Sanctuary Cities

Support Local Law Enforcement in their execution of immigration policy

Empower ICE to detain and deport violent criminal aliens
Revive President Trump's Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy

Rescind President Biden's Open Borders Immigration Executive Orders

Revoke Deferred Action on Child Aliens (DACA) and Deferred Action on Parental Accountability (DAPA)
Remove funding for Central and South American Countries whose citizens violate this Act by migrating here illegally.

Is that correct?

---

I do not know the details of the last bullet point; however, other than that, I 100% fully support this!! Once all is done (theoretically), then we can move to cleaning up the legal immigration process.

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

packofwolves said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I think we've gotten in the weeds a bit by comparing what is happening currently with this administration, and what we all want.

The current situation is allowing a lot of bad people to cross our border. Yes, there are plenty of good people looking for the American opportunity. But, there are a lot of people taking advantage of the situation as well. Word spread quickly about "free money." And, look at how beneficial it's been for the cartels.

Just like you guys, I talk to immigrants who are here both on visas and legally. They are not happy with the current setup, because it is allowing people in that give the good ones a bad name. There is opportunity for many, but the US doesn't have endless resources either.

Yes the current situation is bureaucratic and inconsistent. It needs to be fixed. But, it doesn't need to be easy either. The easier it is, the closer to what we have now it's going to be. There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

My thought has always been, you register, you pass a thorough background check and you receive a temporary status. After, say 6 months to a year, if you have proven income and have not committed serious crimes. Then you are granted citizenship.

What are your thoughts?

---

I think 6 -12 months after entry is too short for citizenship. The current policy of 5 years seems about right. For legal entry only.

---

I would be good for anything between here and there.

---

If 5 years is the law, then we, as a country, should enforce the law as written. That said, I would be fine with shortening the time; however, it's not a passionate issue for me, so, I will not be standing on the steps of congress looking for change. If one is passionate, then I will not oppose the length of time. I say go for it..

I do believe, we as a country, would be far more supportive of legal immigration law changes when the border is secure (I guess we need to define secure).

---

I don't disagree with respecting the laws and securing the border. The border has to be secured. I'm trying to get debate on what everyone thinks should change in the way of immigration.

The bureaucracy had been discussed, but what do we change? Is everyone okay with 5 years?

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

^ When I attend and pay for a movie at the theatre I expect all patrons to pay for a ticket There's a gate and the price of the ticket pre-determined and we all pay to see the show. Why allow massive #'s in the side doors and back door to attend? The movie theatre is getting some sort of a kickback or benefit not visible to all. What happens when the doors are flung open for days on end? Those paying for the ticket soon have to pay more.......as 2nd and 3rd theatres must show the same show. Who pays for the 2nd and 3rd theatre? Those paying the ticket do. What happens when hoodlums also make it through those side and back doors?

Same could be said for attendance at Carter Finley....and throw in the Mexican drug cartel as scalpers with counterfeit tickets resulting in illegals standing in aisles and blocking your view.

Like Trump said ........a beautiful wall and with a beautiful huge door in the middle.............just come in the legal way. When non-payers come in illegally what's the incentive for a customer to come through the gate/big door?

---

Your analogy is terrible but if we go with it, unless you legally immigrated to the US you didn't "pay for the movie."

You were lucky enough to be born in the movie theater and get to watch all the movies you want for free but enjoy talking down your nose about what other patrons need to do to gain access to the theater, like you earned your theater privilege.

Legal immigration should not be a years-long, expensive as hell test that immigrants have to pass to gain access to an exclusive club. There are too many immigrants that are ready, willing, and able to come here and work their asses off for that to be the appropriate approach.

---

Civ, again, your post is just noise… You are now taking the analogy and nuancing it to death. The spirit of the analogy was fine; please don't go where you did…

---

The spirit of the analogy isn't fine.

It touches on a pervasive attitude in American regarding immigration where people think he process itself should be a deterrent and weed-out of all but those with the means and time to run the gauntlet and emerge victorious.

"…Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," remember?

"Give me your best big-data scientists" doesn't have quite the same ring.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

^ When I attend and pay for a movie at the theatre I expect all patrons to pay for a ticket There's a gate and the price of the ticket pre-determined and we all pay to see the show. Why allow massive #'s in the side doors and back door to attend? The movie theatre is getting some sort of a kickback or benefit not visible to all. What happens when the doors are flung open for days on end? Those paying for the ticket soon have to pay more.......as 2nd and 3rd theatres must show the same show. Who pays for the 2nd and 3rd theatre? Those paying the ticket do. What happens when hoodlums also make it through those side and back doors?

Same could be said for attendance at Carter Finley....and throw in the Mexican drug cartel as scalpers with counterfeit tickets resulting in illegals standing in aisles and blocking your view.

Like Trump said ........a beautiful wall and with a beautiful huge door in the middle.............just come in the legal way. When non-payers come in illegally what's the incentive for a customer to come through the gate/big door?

---

Your analogy is terrible but if we go with it, unless you legally immigrated to the US you didn't "pay for the movie."

You were lucky enough to be born in the movie theater and get to watch all the movies you want for free but enjoy talking down your nose about what other patrons need to do to gain access to the theater, like you earned your theater privilege.

Legal immigration should not be a years-long, expensive as hell test that immigrants have to pass to gain access to an exclusive club. There are too many immigrants that are ready, willing, and able to come here and work their asses off for that to be the appropriate approach.

---

Civ, again, your post is just noise… You are now taking the analogy and nuancing it to death. The spirit of the analogy was fine; please don't go where you did…

---

The spirit of the analogy isn't fine.

It touches on a pervasive attitude in American regarding immigration where people think he process itself should be a deterrent and weed-out of all but those with the means and time to run the gauntlet and emerge victorious.

"…Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," remember?

"Give me your best big-data scientists" doesn't have quite the same ring.

---

Civ, I could be vey wrong about this... you sound very emotional. Emotions typically aren't conducive to good processes that creates good outcomes.

I think the idea that you think statements are pervasive attitudes in nothing more than projecting.

Now, the analogy, from my stand point exhibits the issues that arise from poor execution of laws (processes). A natural mindset is for a person to say: hey, if they are getting it free, well, that's not ok by me. I'm not saying that's what is happening in a great deal: however, if it does happen in a community, then, I can see where people are not happy. Hopefully, you can as well...

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Your seeing the current desperation because the legal means of entry are not available. Again, if you fix the legal means and allow for more efficient entry, you reduce the chaos at the border, ie families sending children over by themselves.

Do we not understand that the desperation to use illegal means is there because the legal means is not readily available. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It's part of the current picture.

Sending money is not the same as opportunity. The opportunity is greater in the US then in their current country. That's not a bad thing to me. I want to live in a country that people want to migrate to.

This is the same with low income areas. Money doesn't equal opportunity

---

Hokie, when people use the term "America First", that's what they mean. The citizens of America are first!!!

It is a privilege to be an American Citizen. I am confident the process for legal immigration is completely bureaucratic (just look at dealing with any government agency); so, I would support a simpler process. Additionally, I would limit the number of acceptance per year.

Also, you would see more National support of this change if we just build the damn wall! I believe the biggest bid and ask between opposing opinions is: what do you do first? Border Security or immigration changes.

We just spent 14B on Ukraine (the bill passed last week) without much to support our border. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for this bill, so, I don't trust congress to do anything right! Those people do not support the will of their constituents and we keep voting those hacks into office!

---

I assume everyone here supports the America First act:

The Protect America First Act will:

Enact a 4-year moratorium on immigration and accelerate the time between apprehension and deportation.

Ensure the safe return of unaccompanied alien children, reduces human trafficking, increases deportation for criminal aliens, and ends chain migration.

Expedite removal of illegal aliens from 3 months to 30 days.

Build the Wall and name it after President Donald J. Trump

Cut off Funding for Sanctuary Cities

Support Local Law Enforcement in their execution of immigration policy

Empower ICE to detain and deport violent criminal aliens
Revive President Trump's Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy

Rescind President Biden's Open Borders Immigration Executive Orders

Revoke Deferred Action on Child Aliens (DACA) and Deferred Action on Parental Accountability (DAPA)
Remove funding for Central and South American Countries whose citizens violate this Act by migrating here illegally.

Is that correct?

---

I do not know the details of the last bullet point; however, other than that, I 100% fully support this!! Once all is done (theoretically), then we can move to cleaning up the legal immigration process.

---

a 4 year moratorium on all imagration isn't good policy. It's Nativism. You want to kill the economy of this country, do that.

I'm not necessarily in favor of a 4 year moratorium on immigration but I would like to understand what it has to do with the economy. Killing the economy ... whew, that's quite the accomplishment.

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Your seeing the current desperation because the legal means of entry are not available. Again, if you fix the legal means and allow for more efficient entry, you reduce the chaos at the border, ie families sending children over by themselves.

Do we not understand that the desperation to use illegal means is there because the legal means is not readily available. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It's part of the current picture.

Sending money is not the same as opportunity. The opportunity is greater in the US then in their current country. That's not a bad thing to me. I want to live in a country that people want to migrate to.

This is the same with low income areas. Money doesn't equal opportunity

---

Hokie, when people use the term "America First", that's what they mean. The citizens of America are first!!!

It is a privilege to be an American Citizen. I am confident the process for legal immigration is completely bureaucratic (just look at dealing with any government agency); so, I would support a simpler process. Additionally, I would limit the number of acceptance per year.

Also, you would see more National support of this change if we just build the damn wall! I believe the biggest bid and ask between opposing opinions is: what do you do first? Border Security or immigration changes.

We just spent 14B on Ukraine (the bill passed last week) without much to support our border. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for this bill, so, I don't trust congress to do anything right! Those people do not support the will of their constituents and we keep voting those hacks into office!

---

I assume everyone here supports the America First act:

The Protect America First Act will:

Enact a 4-year moratorium on immigration and accelerate the time between apprehension and deportation.

Ensure the safe return of unaccompanied alien children, reduces human trafficking, increases deportation for criminal aliens, and ends chain migration.

Expedite removal of illegal aliens from 3 months to 30 days.

Build the Wall and name it after President Donald J. Trump

Cut off Funding for Sanctuary Cities

Support Local Law Enforcement in their execution of immigration policy

Empower ICE to detain and deport violent criminal aliens
Revive President Trump's Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy

Rescind President Biden's Open Borders Immigration Executive Orders

Revoke Deferred Action on Child Aliens (DACA) and Deferred Action on Parental Accountability (DAPA)
Remove funding for Central and South American Countries whose citizens violate this Act by migrating here illegally.

Is that correct?

---

I do not know the details of the last bullet point; however, other than that, I 100% fully support this!! Once all is done (theoretically), then we can move to cleaning up the legal immigration process.

---

a 4 year moratorium on all imagration isn't good policy. It's Nativism. You want to kill the economy of this country, do that.

---

That's your opinion! Personally, I do not believe its Nativism at all! Just ask the person that lost their job... Do you think they will say nativism? I don't! I think they will be pissed because they just lost their job... The nativist talk is just noise...

Again, I am 100% supportive of citizens of this country. America First!!!

BTW, a real killer of this economy is printing money.

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Your seeing the current desperation because the legal means of entry are not available. Again, if you fix the legal means and allow for more efficient entry, you reduce the chaos at the border, ie families sending children over by themselves.

Do we not understand that the desperation to use illegal means is there because the legal means is not readily available. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It's part of the current picture.

Sending money is not the same as opportunity. The opportunity is greater in the US then in their current country. That's not a bad thing to me. I want to live in a country that people want to migrate to.

This is the same with low income areas. Money doesn't equal opportunity

---

Hokie, when people use the term "America First", that's what they mean. The citizens of America are first!!!

It is a privilege to be an American Citizen. I am confident the process for legal immigration is completely bureaucratic (just look at dealing with any government agency); so, I would support a simpler process. Additionally, I would limit the number of acceptance per year.

Also, you would see more National support of this change if we just build the damn wall! I believe the biggest bid and ask between opposing opinions is: what do you do first? Border Security or immigration changes.

We just spent 14B on Ukraine (the bill passed last week) without much to support our border. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for this bill, so, I don't trust congress to do anything right! Those people do not support the will of their constituents and we keep voting those hacks into office!

---

I assume everyone here supports the America First act:

The Protect America First Act will:

Enact a 4-year moratorium on immigration and accelerate the time between apprehension and deportation.

Ensure the safe return of unaccompanied alien children, reduces human trafficking, increases deportation for criminal aliens, and ends chain migration.

Expedite removal of illegal aliens from 3 months to 30 days.

Build the Wall and name it after President Donald J. Trump

Cut off Funding for Sanctuary Cities

Support Local Law Enforcement in their execution of immigration policy

Empower ICE to detain and deport violent criminal aliens
Revive President Trump's Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy

Rescind President Biden's Open Borders Immigration Executive Orders

Revoke Deferred Action on Child Aliens (DACA) and Deferred Action on Parental Accountability (DAPA)
Remove funding for Central and South American Countries whose citizens violate this Act by migrating here illegally.

Is that correct?

---

I do not know the details of the last bullet point; however, other than that, I 100% fully support this!! Once all is done (theoretically), then we can move to cleaning up the legal immigration process.

---

a 4 year moratorium on all imagration isn't good policy. It's Nativism. You want to kill the economy of this country, do that.

---

That's your opinion! Personally, I do not believe its Nativism at all! Just ask the person that lost their job... Do you think they will say nativism? I don't! I think they will be pissed because they just lost their job... The nativist talk is just noise...

Again, I am 100% supportive of citizens of this country. America First!!!

BTW, a real killer of this economy is printing money.

---

No what you are stating is the definition of Nativism. It's not noise. You should be embracing it because you embrace these populist republican ideas. They're built around Nativism

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Your seeing the current desperation because the legal means of entry are not available. Again, if you fix the legal means and allow for more efficient entry, you reduce the chaos at the border, ie families sending children over by themselves.

Do we not understand that the desperation to use illegal means is there because the legal means is not readily available. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It's part of the current picture.

Sending money is not the same as opportunity. The opportunity is greater in the US then in their current country. That's not a bad thing to me. I want to live in a country that people want to migrate to.

This is the same with low income areas. Money doesn't equal opportunity

---

Hokie, when people use the term "America First", that's what they mean. The citizens of America are first!!!

It is a privilege to be an American Citizen. I am confident the process for legal immigration is completely bureaucratic (just look at dealing with any government agency); so, I would support a simpler process. Additionally, I would limit the number of acceptance per year.

Also, you would see more National support of this change if we just build the damn wall! I believe the biggest bid and ask between opposing opinions is: what do you do first? Border Security or immigration changes.

We just spent 14B on Ukraine (the bill passed last week) without much to support our border. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for this bill, so, I don't trust congress to do anything right! Those people do not support the will of their constituents and we keep voting those hacks into office!

---

I assume everyone here supports the America First act:

The Protect America First Act will:

Enact a 4-year moratorium on immigration and accelerate the time between apprehension and deportation.

Ensure the safe return of unaccompanied alien children, reduces human trafficking, increases deportation for criminal aliens, and ends chain migration.

Expedite removal of illegal aliens from 3 months to 30 days.

Build the Wall and name it after President Donald J. Trump

Cut off Funding for Sanctuary Cities

Support Local Law Enforcement in their execution of immigration policy

Empower ICE to detain and deport violent criminal aliens
Revive President Trump's Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy

Rescind President Biden's Open Borders Immigration Executive Orders

Revoke Deferred Action on Child Aliens (DACA) and Deferred Action on Parental Accountability (DAPA)
Remove funding for Central and South American Countries whose citizens violate this Act by migrating here illegally.

Is that correct?

---

I do not know the details of the last bullet point; however, other than that, I 100% fully support this!! Once all is done (theoretically), then we can move to cleaning up the legal immigration process.

---

a 4 year moratorium on all imagration isn't good policy. It's Nativism. You want to kill the economy of this country, do that.

---

That's your opinion! Personally, I do not believe its Nativism at all! Just ask the person that lost their job... Do you think they will say nativism? I don't! I think they will be pissed because they just lost their job... The nativist talk is just noise...

Again, I am 100% supportive of citizens of this country. America First!!!

BTW, a real killer of this economy is printing money.

---

No what you are stating is the definition of Nativism. It's not noise. You should be embracing it because you embrace these populist republican ideas. They're built around Nativism

---

Stated while you completely ignore that our Southern Border has been wide open for the last 14+/- months... for illegal aliens nonetheless... "nativism" that while you are at it.

You are incredible at applying that selective memory of yours...

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fed-to-raise-interest-rates-for-first-time-in-three-years-in-bid-to-combat-inflation/

Quote:

---

The Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday that it will raise interests rates by a quarter of a percentage point, hiking rates for the first time since December 2018 in an effort to curb rising inflation.

---

It's about time.

PackFansXL said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fed-to-raise-interest-rates-for-first-time-in-three-years-in-bid-to-combat-inflation/

Quote:

---

The Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday that it will raise interests rates by a quarter of a percentage point, hiking rates for the first time since December 2018 in an effort to curb rising inflation.

---

It's about time.

---

It really doesn't make a difference as long as quantitative easing is going on...

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Your seeing the current desperation because the legal means of entry are not available. Again, if you fix the legal means and allow for more efficient entry, you reduce the chaos at the border, ie families sending children over by themselves.

Do we not understand that the desperation to use illegal means is there because the legal means is not readily available. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It's part of the current picture.

Sending money is not the same as opportunity. The opportunity is greater in the US then in their current country. That's not a bad thing to me. I want to live in a country that people want to migrate to.

This is the same with low income areas. Money doesn't equal opportunity

---

Hokie, when people use the term "America First", that's what they mean. The citizens of America are first!!!

It is a privilege to be an American Citizen. I am confident the process for legal immigration is completely bureaucratic (just look at dealing with any government agency); so, I would support a simpler process. Additionally, I would limit the number of acceptance per year.

Also, you would see more National support of this change if we just build the damn wall! I believe the biggest bid and ask between opposing opinions is: what do you do first? Border Security or immigration changes.

We just spent 14B on Ukraine (the bill passed last week) without much to support our border. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for this bill, so, I don't trust congress to do anything right! Those people do not support the will of their constituents and we keep voting those hacks into office!

---

I assume everyone here supports the America First act:

The Protect America First Act will:

Enact a 4-year moratorium on immigration and accelerate the time between apprehension and deportation.

Ensure the safe return of unaccompanied alien children, reduces human trafficking, increases deportation for criminal aliens, and ends chain migration.

Expedite removal of illegal aliens from 3 months to 30 days.

Build the Wall and name it after President Donald J. Trump

Cut off Funding for Sanctuary Cities

Support Local Law Enforcement in their execution of immigration policy

Empower ICE to detain and deport violent criminal aliens
Revive President Trump's Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy

Rescind President Biden's Open Borders Immigration Executive Orders

Revoke Deferred Action on Child Aliens (DACA) and Deferred Action on Parental Accountability (DAPA)
Remove funding for Central and South American Countries whose citizens violate this Act by migrating here illegally.

Is that correct?

---

I do not know the details of the last bullet point; however, other than that, I 100% fully support this!! Once all is done (theoretically), then we can move to cleaning up the legal immigration process.

---

a 4 year moratorium on all imagration isn't good policy. It's Nativism. You want to kill the economy of this country, do that.

---

That's your opinion! Personally, I do not believe its Nativism at all! Just ask the person that lost their job... Do you think they will say nativism? I don't! I think they will be pissed because they just lost their job... The nativist talk is just noise...

Again, I am 100% supportive of citizens of this country. America First!!!

BTW, a real killer of this economy is printing money.

---

No what you are stating is the definition of Nativism. It's not noise. You should be embracing it because you embrace these populist republican ideas. They're built around Nativism

---

Hokie, are you implying that the US should be an open border for anyone to come in? I don't get that out of you; however, this Nativist talk makes me consider the thinking, for you.

Regarding Populist ideas. I would say I am a true conservative. The populist side of me is based on how the country is separated by Elitist and everyone else. Everyone else can include Democrats and Republicans.

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?

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?

---

I didn't say shut it down. I was referring to the current state of having it wide open.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

^ When I attend and pay for a movie at the theatre I expect all patrons to pay for a ticket There's a gate and the price of the ticket pre-determined and we all pay to see the show. Why allow massive #'s in the side doors and back door to attend? The movie theatre is getting some sort of a kickback or benefit not visible to all. What happens when the doors are flung open for days on end? Those paying for the ticket soon have to pay more.......as 2nd and 3rd theatres must show the same show. Who pays for the 2nd and 3rd theatre? Those paying the ticket do. What happens when hoodlums also make it through those side and back doors?

Same could be said for attendance at Carter Finley....and throw in the Mexican drug cartel as scalpers with counterfeit tickets resulting in illegals standing in aisles and blocking your view.

Like Trump said ........a beautiful wall and with a beautiful huge door in the middle.............just come in the legal way. When non-payers come in illegally what's the incentive for a customer to come through the gate/big door?

---

Your analogy is terrible but if we go with it, unless you legally immigrated to the US you didn't "pay for the movie."

You were lucky enough to be born in the movie theater and get to watch all the movies you want for free but enjoy talking down your nose about what other patrons need to do to gain access to the theater, like you earned your theater privilege.

Legal immigration should not be a years-long, expensive as hell test that immigrants have to pass to gain access to an exclusive club. There are too many immigrants that are ready, willing, and able to come here and work their asses off for that to be the appropriate approach.

---

Civ, again, your post is just noise… You are now taking the analogy and nuancing it to death. The spirit of the analogy was fine; please don't go where you did…

---

The spirit of the analogy isn't fine.

It touches on a pervasive attitude in American regarding immigration where people think he process itself should be a deterrent and weed-out of all but those with the means and time to run the gauntlet and emerge victorious.

"…Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," remember?

"Give me your best big-data scientists" doesn't have quite the same ring.

---

Civ, I could be vey wrong about this... you sound very emotional. Emotions typically aren't conducive to good processes that creates good outcomes.

I think the idea that you think statements are pervasive attitudes in nothing more than projecting.

Now, the analogy, from my stand point exhibits the issues that arise from poor execution of laws (processes). A natural mindset is for a person to say: hey, if they are getting it free, well, that's not ok by me. I'm not saying that's what is happening in a great deal: however, if it does happen in a community, then, I can see where people are not happy. Hopefully, you can as well...

---

Not emotional at all, we're just talking here brother.

I think there is both an economic benefit to immigration and also a moral obligation to not view immigration only through a "what's in it for us" lens.

The United States was not founded as a members-only country club; our families were all immigrants (many poor) at some point and our immigration policy needs to be reflective of our founding focus.