Why can't Hungary be an 'instigator of the liberal revolutions' and also try to restrict immigration? What's with the perjorative 'ethnostate'? Japan, an island, doesn't need razor wire fences; why doesn't it come under your 'liberal' scrutiny? Have you noticed the social and political problems that most of Europe is facing, where decades of uncontrolled immigration have led to serious ethnic strife and real governance issues? I spent 1992-93 in France, where poor assimilation of Maghreb immigrants' children (boys, mainly) led to weekly bombings and synagogue attacks. And it's gotten worse everywhere in Europe since then. Or is 'an asylum for all mankind' more important that the chaotic social order that uncontrolled immigration has brought? There would be no need for Europe to be the asylum center for half the world if the rest of the world is ridded of their tyrants, far worse than Orban.
France has had problems with assimilation, resulting in violence at times, but that doesn't mean they don't have a duty to try bearing in mind their imperial projects in north Africa.
And talking of domestic violence, have you compared the figures for France and the US? I know where I'd feel safer.
I don't think the founders, all Englishmen, could have foreseen the calamity of modern liberalism. One example is the implementation of race and sex quotas along with the legal concept of "disparate impact," and forced integration. There's nothing remotely like this in the constitution or declaration of independence. There was the concept of freedom of association which has long been discarded.
I doubt the founders would have been able to comprehend the government/NGO complex either. Or mass media.
Another point: If only white people are capable of creating "opportunities" for non-whites isn't this, you know, racism?
Leftists pull out original intent arguments when convenient while demanding living constitutionalism as their default position. However, there is nothing in the constitution related to immigration, US immigration policy is based on federal statutes that had been legislated, approved and implemented. All statutes are subject to change through the political process. But meanwhile there isn't a valid claim that Trump's policies on immigration are anything but simply complying with all of the statutes. Just because previous administrations ignore the laws of the land related to immigration, does not make Trump's actions somehow draconian. And comparing the current US policies and actions related to illegal immigration to that of several liberal countries in Europe, like Denmark... well Trump's policies and actions are immigrant-loving by comparison.
It’s not the “what” of expelling those who overstay visas or wade the Rio Grande, Frank, it’s the “how”. Obama’s administration was quite hawkish in sending illegals back to their countries. However, it was done without goons, tromping on due process or executing activists in the street. Your record of being wrong remains unblemished.
So, if you don't see it on the media reports then it never happened? You have zero proof that Obama did not deploy ICE to apprehend illegals.
Note too that Texas required 200 ICE officers and Minnesota 3,000. The reason is that Minnesota has Democrat politicians practicing seditious and treasonous policies against Trump.
Do you have evidence that it did happen under Obama? Or perhaps you believe that the dastardly liberal media, like the NYT and Fox News, covered it up?
So, if the NYT, CNN and MSNBC, your favored sources for news and information, don't report a tree falling in the forest, Ken will demand that everyone that claims the tree fell in the forest brainwashed by Fox News. Got it. You probably claimed that there was no problem at the southern border under Biden as only Fox News was reporting on it.
Why can't Hungary be an 'instigator of the liberal revolutions' and also try to restrict immigration? What's with the perjorative 'ethnostate'? Japan, an island, doesn't need razor wire fences; why doesn't it come under your 'liberal' scrutiny? Have you noticed the social and political problems that most of Europe is facing, where decades of uncontrolled immigration have led to serious ethnic strife and real governance issues? I spent 1992-93 in France, where poor assimilation of Maghreb immigrants' children (boys, mainly) led to weekly bombings and synagogue attacks. And it's gotten worse everywhere in Europe since then. Or is 'an asylum for all mankind' more important that the chaotic social order that uncontrolled immigration has brought? There would be no need for Europe to be the asylum center for half the world if the rest of the world is ridded of their tyrants, far worse than Orban.
France has had problems with assimilation, resulting in violence at times, but that doesn't mean they don't have a duty to try bearing in mind their imperial projects in north Africa.
And talking of domestic violence, have you compared the figures for France and the US? I know where I'd feel safer.
I don't think the founders, all Englishmen, could have foreseen the calamity of modern liberalism. One example is the implementation of race and sex quotas along with the legal concept of "disparate impact," and forced integration. There's nothing remotely like this in the constitution or declaration of independence. There was the concept of freedom of association which has long been discarded.
I doubt the founders would have been able to comprehend the government/NGO complex either. Or mass media.
Another point: If only white people are capable of creating "opportunities" for non-whites isn't this, you know, racism?
Leftists pull out original intent arguments when convenient while demanding living constitutionalism as their default position. However, there is nothing in the constitution related to immigration, US immigration policy is based on federal statutes that had been legislated, approved and implemented. All statutes are subject to change through the political process. But meanwhile there isn't a valid claim that Trump's policies on immigration are anything but simply complying with all of the statutes. Just because previous administrations ignore the laws of the land related to immigration, does not make Trump's actions somehow draconian. And comparing the current US policies and actions related to illegal immigration to that of several liberal countries in Europe, like Denmark... well Trump's policies and actions are immigrant-loving by comparison.
It’s not the “what” of expelling those who overstay visas or wade the Rio Grande, Frank, it’s the “how”. Obama’s administration was quite hawkish in sending illegals back to their countries. However, it was done without goons, tromping on due process or executing activists in the street. Your record of being wrong remains unblemished.
Come on Brucy.
So, if you don't see it on the media reports then it never happened? You have zero proof that Obama did not deploy ICE to apprehend illegals.
Note too that Texas required 200 ICE officers and Minnesota 3,000. The reason is that Minnesota has Democrat politicians practicing seditious and treasonous policies against Trump.
Do you have evidence that it did happen under Obama? Or perhaps you believe that the dastardly liberal media, like the NYT and Fox News, covered it up?
So, if the NYT, CNN and MSNBC, your favored sources for news and information, don't report a tree falling in the forest, Ken will demand that everyone that claims the tree fell in the forest brainwashed by Fox News. Got it. You probably claimed that there was no problem at the southern border under Biden as only Fox News was reporting on it.
Oh dear Frank. You really need to upgrade your LLM. The current one is only capable of churning out meaningless non sequitur word salads.