Send UK illegals to America! (2 Viewers)

[Uncle Gizmo]

It appears that the Venezuelan government is sending their criminals to America.

The UK is currently in talks with Rwanda to send our illegal immigrants there...

Rwanda Plan explained: Why the UK Government should rethink the scheme

The UK and Rwanda have signed an agreement for the UK to deport people seeking asylum in Britain to Rwanda. The UK Government should be protecting and welcoming asylum seekers and refugees, not sending them miles away.

www.rescue.org

When I saw this below I thought, the UK could copy Venezuela and do the same, package up our illegal immigrants and drop them off on the American border! In Canada maybe then the immigrants would have a choice of country!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756097055129227392

Post-edited to add more context for people not in the know....

 

[Pat Hartman]

I like the offshore island plan. I think we should send people who enter the country illegally to Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. They claim to offer sanctuary. Although, with Martha's Vineyard, we know it is just virtue signaling. They don't actually offer asylum. Maybe some of the islands in Puget Sound. They are less densely populated. Canada was offering $10,000 and a plot of land for people to go to Newfoundland. Maybe they would take some.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

We can't forget that Australia was once a place where undesirables were sent. Problem is, we are running out of islands.

 

[conception_native_0123]

we are running out of islands.

land in general.

 

[Isaac]

It appears that the Venezuelan government is sending their criminals to America.

The UK is currently in talks with Rwanda to send our illegal immigrants there...

Rwanda Plan explained: Why the UK Government should rethink the scheme

The UK and Rwanda have signed an agreement for the UK to deport people seeking asylum in Britain to Rwanda. The UK Government should be protecting and welcoming asylum seekers and refugees, not sending them miles away.

www.rescue.org

When I saw this below I thought, the UK could copy Venezuela and do the same, package up our illegal immigrants and drop them off on the American border! In Canada maybe then the immigrants would have a choice of country!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756097055129227392

Post-edited to add more context for people not in the know....

And oh my goodness, but where o where did this migrant with virtually no identification or credentials get a firearm in a city that supposedly has excellent gun control laws???

Any gun control advocates care to explain this one

 

[Steve R.]

We can't forget that Australia was once a place where undesirables were sent. Problem is, we are running out of islands.

The Earth is "full". in the old days, prior to around 1920 it was common to force massive population relocations. Evidently in the period of 1970 through 1971 (Black September) Jordan took aggressive action against Palestinians in Jordan. The Palestinians then (forced) relocated to Lebanon. That migration then resulted in a civil war there which destabilized Lebanon. (Why aren't the pro-Palestinian protestors complaining about Jordan's ethnic cleansing too.) Where can we force the population of Gaza to relocate to today so that they don't pose a threat to Israel?

 

[Mike Krailo]

And oh my goodness, but where o where did this migrant with virtually no identification or credentials get a firearm in a city that supposedly has excellent gun control laws???

Any gun control advocates care to explain this one

I hear crickets. If he is part of organized crime of any kind, they can obtain the guns through their organization. They can also steal them from law abiding citizens. Check the serial numbers for possible registration if present. It's a good question though.

 

[Isaac]

I hear crickets. If he is part of organized crime of any kind, they can obtain the guns through their organization. They can also steal them from law abiding citizens. Check the serial numbers for possible registration if present. It's a good question though.

Exactly... The criminals will always have a way to get them so gun control laws mostly just affect the good people

 

[AccessBlaster]

Part of the problem is they don't enforce current laws, instead they write new laws they will not enforce.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Part of the problem is they don't enforce current laws, instead they write new laws they will not enforce.

It's all about virtue signaling. All fluff. No substance. If we can just pass one more new law, it will fix everything. Trump is going to need to up the ante next year. Removing two regulations for every one new one isn't enough. He needs to institute the "cheaper by the dozen" plan or we'll never catch up.

It is downright un-American to have laws on the books that you are not going to enforce with equality. This is how banana republics control the masses. They weaponize their criminal injustice systems.

 

[Isaac]

If we can just pass one more new law, it will fix everything

And most importantly, if we can spend another billion dollars - now THAT will be the magic bullet that solves the problem once and for all!

Typical Democrat mental illness, a way of thinking that has sparse creativity.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I understand that the democrats want to bring illegals in to the USA because there is a high chance they will vote democrat.

It puzzled me as to why they don't vet these immigrants and filter out the criminal ones at the border.

Then I wondered, is that their intention?

The democrats want to undermine the police force making it easier for criminals to commit crimes without consequence.

A significant increase in the number of people who are willing to commit crimes will result in an increase in crime.

Is that their goal?

When crime becomes a nationwide problem then they can bring in surveillance cameras to every aspect of American life and take total control over its people.

 

[NauticalGent]

understand that the democrats want to bring illegals in to the USA because there is a high chance they will vote democrat.

I don't subscribe to that theory. As you have pointed out, it makes no sense. I think though, it gives the appearance of a benevolent governing body who is willing to take care of it's people - even if the "care" is not earned. It is THAT perception that will make the demographic the Democrap party caters to vote accordingly.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I don't subscribe to that theory.

But they are already registering them to vote. Many municipalities are changing their laws to even allow it. Once they are registered to vote, they will be voting in non-municipal elections.

Why the idiots who think the criminals (they are ALL criminals even if their only crime is breaking our immigration laws) deserve representation is beyond me.

 

[Isaac]

I understand that the democrats want to bring illegals in to the USA because there is a high chance they will vote democrat.

It puzzled me as to why they don't vet these immigrants and filter out the criminal ones at the border.

Then I wondered, is that their intention?

The democrats want to undermine the police force making it easier for criminals to commit crimes without consequence.

A significant increase in the number of people who are willing to commit crimes will result in an increase in crime.

Is that their goal?

When crime becomes a nationwide problem then they can bring in surveillance cameras to every aspect of American life and take total control over its people.

To me the advantage in voting is clear, although illegals cannot vote, that does not mean that there is zero benefit to bringing them for votes.
I as illegal Pancho may not vote, but my niece and nephews who are citizens here are going to be sympathetic to whichever party was sympathetic to me. It definitely translates to votes, just not specifically by the illegals. At least, until we give them amnesty, which eventually we'll have to once they're here long enough, just like DACA's. So yeah - that theory has a lot of weight IMO. Doesn't matter that illegals technically cannot vote.

I personally know plenty of Mexican citizens who vote Democrat mostly because of the immigration issue.

 

[Pat Hartman]

My step mother voted for Obama because she was black. He didn't fool her a second time though. She couldn't bring herself to vote for Romney though so she didn't vote. Voting for Democrats over and over again means you aren't paying attention OR you're on the dole and vote for the party who gives you the most "free" stuff.

 

[ColinEssex]

OR you're on the dole and vote for the party who gives you the most "free" stuff.

When you have nothing then that is a very good reason.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

When you have nothing then that is a very good reason.

All the more reason to not allow people on the dole to vote. They will always vote for the free stuff. We are on the brink now. The number of wage earners who do not pay taxes hovers around 47%. So, with people on the dole voting, we probably have around a 50/50 split. We are already running out of other people's money.

 

[ColinEssex]

All the more reason to not allow people on the dole to vote. They will always vote for the free stuff.

You appear to think that people on the dole are 'scroungers'. That view is blinkered because hard working people may find themselves out of work for many reasons like redundancy, illness etc etc. Yes, I agree some are scroungers but it's not fair to lump out of work people together like you appear to.
Also, I thought most people in the USA (over voting age) have a right to vote irrespective of social status. Isn't that their right to vote? Next, you'll be saying certain ethnic groups shouldn't vote. You display an excellent example of 'the land of the free' - with exceptions of course.
Maybe you should exclude disabled people on benefits. After all, they are scrounging off the state
Is your view indicative of the middle class Americans? I think your view of excluding certain groups is rather Dickensian. I suggest you move into at least the 20th century. The 21st century maybe to big a leap for you.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

You appear to think that people on the dole are 'scroungers'.

No, many of them can't help themselves. I am OK with helping them. Others make it a full time occupation. Regardless, If they have no skin in the game, they shouldn't be able to vote for the government to take money from me and give it to them. In California alone, billions of dollars of COVID money have been lost to fraud and no one is going to make California repay the government for not managing the money carefully. Who the hell cares - it is "other people's money".

Do not confuse charity with what the government does. When I choose to give time, money, or goods to local charities, it is MY CHOICE. My money (or time), my choice. Sort of like the Democrat mantra of "my body my choice" - But they mean that literally. Their body, their choice, my body is also according to them -their choice.

There is nothing in our Constitution that says that the US government should run the biggest charity on the planet. Over time, people have reduced their charitable donations because they think the government is doing it for them so they don't have to.

Biden is trying to gain votes from the ignorant children in college by promising to "forgive" their college debt. They aren't going to "forgive" any tuition for my grandchildren because they didn't overspend on their education AND they worked summer and winter jobs throughout to avoid going into debt. This isn't charity. It is theft. It is also anti-constitutional and the Supreme Court has weighed in on this. The House of Representatives allocates money for the government to spend. Biden doesn't get to take money that was earmarked for one program and use it to give a gift to others so they will vote for him. He brags about how he is ignoring the Supreme Court ruling that said he couldn't reallocate the funds to a different purpose but he is proud of violating their ruling. THAT is the Democrat's view of "democracy". It is exactly why they always refer to "democracy" as "OUR democracy" because it sure isn't what the rest of us view as democracy.