This is not the post I intended to do next. But Dan has again compelled me to change my plans due to his shamefulness and hate. So this is in response to the comments section of this post, which is his lamentation about a Biden immigration move. To get to the problem I saw, apparently Biden's move runs afoul of a 1980 Refugee Act, which I, to be honest, haven't studied in depth. Basically, Dan's whine is the this act allows alleged refugees and asylum seekers to pass through countries which could offer them asylum to come here, and the fact that they made it to our borders means they get to enter and be welcomed without fear of deportation, regardless of where along our lengthy border they choose to enter. That is, they're able to be allowed in even if they avoid legal ports of entry.
I find this to be incredibly stupid, as it provides for all manner of abuses. If one is being persecuted, and the next country across the border is a place where I can find sanctuary, that's the country where I'm obliged to seek asylum. Dan insists, due to this goofy 1980's act, that they can ignore all other countries between their home and here which might provide them asylum in order that they can avail themselves of our racist threats all they like. As Dan insists, it seems clear he wants all seeking "asylum" to come here only. He's an idiot.
So I will be going through comments he allowed me to post, and his less than accurate restatement of those he deleted to demonstrate the stupidity of leftist immigration policy and how shameful it is. Let's begin:
As he deleted my initial response to his post, he says of me "that he disagrees with the 1980 Refugee Act - without giving any reason
more than it was BS" and "it likely never anticipated what we now face
along our border thanks to Biden and other open borders...'supporters'", and " He seemed to object that people could say they're fleeing danger when he doubts it." Neither of these is close to an accurate reflection of my actual comment, except for what those who crafted the 1980 law expected would happen down the road. There was nothing like the number of illegal border invaders in 1980 as there has been over the last ten to twenty years, and damn sure without a doubt what we've suffered since his presidential choice was inflicted upon us since Jan 21, 2021. But while I said it was a BS bill, I didn't say only that. What I stated at the outset of this post was a more fleshed out example of what I did say. Dan jumps on anything he thinks will disparage those who disagree with his marxism. Then, of course, I NEVER said anything even most liars would construe as what he said my objections truly are with regard to the invaders themselves.
My position has been crystal clear for quite some time: We're not obliged to accept as truthful every claim of people insisting they're fleeing danger, and more so, our government is absolutely obliged to make sure such claims are actually true. Dan doesn't care if a claim of persecution is true or not, because to dare question such a claim spoils Dan's desire to posture as a compassionate Christian, which is just something Dan tries to exploit to push his marxist crap. The primary obligation of the government of the United States of America is the people of the United States of America. Our safety and welfare, not the safety and welfare of foreigners. And any policy which fails to fully vet each and every foreigner seeking asylum here, to ensure they are not acting contrary to our laws, is a threat to the safety and welfare of the people this government must regard as of primary importance. For those allowed to make a claim, they must be housed in a secure facility and NOT allowed free access to the nation until they are confirmed as actual refugees from legitimate harm. None of this crap of assigning court dates too many ignore once allowed free movement into this country.
"Marshal complained that progressive and rational people are concerned about actual white supremacy and nationalism in our nation and them asked why any refugees would want to come here."
Pretty damned logical question to actual rational people, I insist. But of course Dan lies here, as I never described his ilk as "rational". If he's going to quote me, he should actually quote what I actually say. Here we see the shamefulness of his practice of deleting comments for whatever lame-assed reason he'll pull from his backside. But the rest is, as I said, logical. If the left insists we're such racist, nationalist assholes, how could anyone truly concerned for actual refugees do nothing to dissuade them from coming here. How much safer will they be with all the racists and nationalists roaming about? One of the two positions is a lie. Either racism is a real issue here among those who wish for a secure border, or it's not. Either this is a safer destination than their home, given our rampant racism, or it's not. It can't be both. Keep in mind, there are those who say our nation is not a safe place for foreigners, but it ain't due to "white nationalists" or "racists", but by thugs Dan also defends. Dan follows with this moronic gem:
"Ignoring the point that self-determination is a human right."
This statement was attached to the previous, and obviously it has no relation to it. But I'll put that aside and just insist it is yet another concept Dan and his ilk corrupts to push his agenda. Here, he's saying "self-determination" justifies ignoring the laws of our country regarding immigration. We as a nation are not allowed to determine if we benefit in any way by the invasion of these people alleging they're fleeing harm. But it doesn't stop with "refugees"...legit or otherwise. No. To Dan, it includes people who want to find a job, as if they were starving in their host countries. Has anyone reading this observed any invaders who look like they missed a meal...who are wearing rags? No. To Dan, "self-determination" means "F**k the Americans and what they want! They must subordinate their desires to OUR 'self-determination'!" We're under no such obligation in any way, shape or form.
"Marshal said he didn't care about other nations offering asylum or doing so in a way that wasn't safe for refugees..."
Another intentional lie on Dan's part...which he does as much as his Biden does. I said I didn't care that other nations don't provide to the same degree as we do. If refugees insist other nations they passed through weren't safe enough, that doesn't mean they weren't safe enough to satisfy international law regarding where one should take refuge. "Well, they're safe...just not as safe as the United States." That's pretty easy to say. But why should our nation simply accept that excuse for why they didn't take refuge there? Again, morons like Dan don't care. Morons like Dan are trying to posture as more caring...except where fellow Americans are concerned.
"...that it's all about we who are here (read, "the white people like me who are here and don't want them here...")
Again, my point is that it's all about our government putting its own people first, and not pretending there's no risk to them by welcoming foreigners about whom nothing is known except whatever story they tell of themselves...no vetting...and allowing them to freely roam under the promise they'll show up for their court hearing to determine whether or not they qualify as refugees or asylum seekers. Dan prefers we just assume there are no liars among the crowd, that they're all just innocent "victims of oppression" simply because they say they are.
And of course, Dan the racist can't help accusing those with rational and fact-based opinions of racism, as if it matters at all to me from where any migrant comes and what race they might be, because...you know...embrace grace.
"...and ended with an appeal to national sovereignty, ignoring that a nation that is sovereign but turns away refugees is not a good nation."
First, "national sovereignty" is no small thing. It's the authority of a state to govern itself...it's "self-determination" which Dan believes is of primary importance for anyone but ourselves. All nations claim this authority...this "right"...without which there is no nation.
Then Dan lies by implying there's a specific call to turn away refugees, rather than close the border in order that we can in a more orderly fashion, determine who among those claiming to be refugees truly are. This of course also calls into play what "refugee" means, or what constitutes a refugee to whom we might have any legitimate obligation...morally or otherwise. Again, Dan is cool with simply accepting any person who claims to be one. And to Dan there is no right belonging to any nation to dispute what constitutes a "refugee". "I'm fleeing abject boredom!" "No problem! C'mon in!" We're under no obligation to accept anyone without question. Dan insists we must, or that we who aren't morons like him intend to deny those who are truly in danger. Because...you know...embrace grace.
"Marshal also ignores that we HURTING for employees and WE would benefit from more workers coming here, if he's wanting to be just selfish about it and ignore the human rights side of the things."
As is so typical of the fact adverse left, we are NOT "hurting" for employees such that we need to allow unregulated invasions of foreigners to fill any void. As with open borders proponents from both sides of the aisle, Dan ignores so much in pretending his is a rational argument:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/16/do-we-really-need-more-immigrant-workers/
In a very real sense, this argument represents another manner of artificially affecting the economy, most especially wages. There's nothing selfish about being priced out of work due to invaders being hired at lower wages. It's not a human rights issue to allow such to happen in order for posers like Dan to posture as caring, compassionate people while the lives of his own countrymen are disrupted.
"And Marshal, I get that you personally don't care about the laws (and common sense) that ensure as a basic human right the liberty to seek asylum, but it IS the law."
We often see Dan whine about "unjust laws", but where he finds a law just, we all should just accept that it is, which the 1980 law isn't quite. But more importantly, aside from the fact that I haven't suggested ignoring or breaking any law like Dan allows the invaders to do, it's not a question of seeking asylum. It's a question of ensuring those who insist they need it, those who insist they're refugees from some great danger, can prove it. Again, Dan would have us be as moronic as he is and simply accept whatever the invader says is the truth. In the meantime, screw the Americans killed in various ways by the hands of the invaders. Like most lefties, Dan doesn't care about anyone, but truly cares least for his own. Just let everyone in so the Trabue-type asshats can pretend they've done good, while people, including invaders as well, are harmed and exploited. Our nation has always welcomed both legal immigrants and actual refugees seeking asylum. I haven't said or done anything to oppose that.
"I can't fathom WHO is opposed to people seeking asylum?"
There's very little Dan can't fathom, and he refuses to acknowledge the truths of what he can. So here again we see him lying, as the more than implicit message in his comment is that such opposition exists, choosing to pretend it's about actual asylum seekers as opposed to those coached to say they're asylum seekers when they're caught crossing the border illegally, or to simply seek out officials to whom they can pose as people fleeing danger.
"WHO is opposed to people leaving an impoverished area to try to find a less impoverished area to be able to support themselves?"
No one I've ever met. But we have protocols for that, and it doesn't include sneaking or barging in without regard for our sovereign borders and laws...or the private property of our fellow Americans.
"The right to self-determination is a basic human right.
Can you at least affirm that much?"
It's not at all at issue here. That crap argument doesn't justify subordinating the self-determination of our nation.
" If the place - the nation - where you live became dangerous and you couldn't live there and feed yourself, would YOU want the freedom to move - immediately! - to some place that is safe and where you could feed yourself?"
When you can pick out of that crowd who of the tens of thousands are fleeing actual danger directed specifically at them, who are without the ability to feed themselves (I've yet to see anyone who looks emaciated), then we'll talk. For those who simply want or need a better gig, they can wait in line at the front door, like so many good people have done and still do. There's an actual, legal definition of "refugee" in U.S. immigration law. It goes like this:
(42) The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country
of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no
nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually
resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country
because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the
President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title)
may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's
nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within
the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is
persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion. The term "refugee" does not include any person who
ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution
of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of
determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort
a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been
persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for
other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be
deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a
person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to
undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure,
refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of
persecution on account of political opinion.
Pick out those from the tens of thousands at the border who match that definition. Then we can talk about asylum, which looks like this:
Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:
- Meet the definition of refugee
- Are already in the United States
- Are seeking admission at a port of entry
Note the first and last point. That seems to conflict with the 1980 Refugee Act, but it's from the USCIS website: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum
I'm going to leave it there. I'll be doing possibly two more on this issue depending on how long the post gets, but I wish to address Dan wetting his panties over comments I made at his blog.
