Republican controlled committee votes to grant backdoor open borders via asylum regulation


q - I think that is exactly the point - to fundamentally change the United States.

The question is, will the Left be successful in their effort to do so?

I think the answer is, eventually, yes.

With very few notable exceptions, the Left has a stranglehold on two key institutions: Communication outlets and education. As a result, too many voters are ill-informed and/or don’t really give a damn as long as their Party keeps the freebies coming their way - paid for with other peoples money, of course.

In addition, Democrats hang together, Republicans do not. I’m convinced that even if Repubs had a 60 vote majority in the Senate - the required number to move significant legislation on, say, controlling our borders - enough Repubs would withhold a favorable vote that such legislation would fail.

I’m absolutely convinced that when Dems regain control we will have a new and vast pool of new Dem voters - illegals (AKA: newly minted US citizens) - thanks to Dems and some Repubs who will trade in our culture/values in an effort to retain their political seats in congress.

In point of fact - in several jurisdictions controlled by the Left around the country, illegals are being allowed to vote on local issues. In short, the camel already has its nose under the tent.

The Left is relentless - the Right is not.


We already do.


True. Kalifornia is the perfect example. Pubic employees are PROHIBITED from inquiring as to the immigration status of anyone they “serve” and illegals are allowed to get a driver’s license there. Plus, anyone applying for a DL is automatically also given a voter registration. Therefore, tens of thousands–if not hundreds of thousands–of illegals are “registered” and on the voter rolls in Kalifornia, perhaps “honestly” believing that they have the “right” to vote. Since they are told from the instant they cross our border that their “benefits” stem from the “generosity” of Democrats, THAT’S who they vote for. Perhaps in a few generations they’ll learn better, but by then it’s too late for the country.


Yes it has:

Valdiviezo‐Galdamez v. Att’y Gen. of the United States, 502 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2007) The 3rd Circuit remanded this case to the BIA, finding that a Columbian woman persecuted by the FARC had a well founded fear of future persecution based on her membership in a particular social group of “women who have escaped involuntary servitude after being abducted and confined by the FARC.” The Court further found that this group was immutable and supported by the record.

Other grounds:

  • Former gang member seek to avoid revenge-killing.
  • Evidence that your family, specifically, is being targeted (possibly the gang killed one of them).

It didn’t happen. I can show you cases that were rejected just to prove it.

Informants aren’t accepted, being “at risk youth” isn’t accepted, rejecting or resisting recruitment isn’t accepted, claiming family targeting but having your family living safely in the place in question isn’t accepted.

No Mike. This is not what has happened, because of what constitutes a "“particular social group.” That’s the test, along with ascertaining that the threat claimed appears real.


One very good reason McConnell should scrap the filibuster in January if he has enough votes. Notice that I said “if he has enough votes” NOT “if the GOP retains a majority”. Two separate concepts.

The other reason is that the democrats will next time they are in a position to do so. Their current tactics and rhetoric prove that nothing is beyond the pale.


It’s altruism. When you fail to value human life, the culture becomes irrevocably twisted.

I can understand triage, but that’s not what any of this is. This isn’t like rejecting foreign nationals of a country we’re at war with, or containing an epidemic.

This is knee-jerk reaction to a complicated problem.

It’s also a very reductive case, where everything about this is reduced to a political issue. No other way of looking at the issue is accepted. If there’s anyway this comes back to influencing politics, that’s treated as real, substantive, and the most important aspect.


That is just a flat out untruth, and I’m sure you know it. Triage is the entire point of border security; not just who needs help the most urgently, but also on whom should limited resources be expended-- that’s part of triage, too.


It’s not triage; you’re following a gut reaction.

Foreigners have come here, formed conclaves, built their own organizations to forward their group… and still assimilated, with the conclaves breaking up, and the organizations melting away or re-purposed into something else.

Your issue, is that you don’t know what’s normal for assimilation, and you treat what you don’t think is normal with suspicion and hostility.

“Limited resources”? We’re talking about people who arrive here, and make themselves self-starters. It isn’t an imposition just to let them come here and (re)build their own lives.

We weren’t “helping” the Italians or the Polish, or the Jews. And just like all of them, the primary reason people come here today, is opportunity & safety. That hasn’t changed.

It goes right to the heart of what America is, a place where you can come & self-start.


LEGAL, controlled and based on skill sets needed by the US is a desirable thing. ILLEGAL “immigration”/making a mad dash to enter the US and resembling a jail break, is in no way desirable.

The rest of this thread is BS - AKA: mental masturbation.

The one good thing about the discussion is that it does demonstrate this board’s Left-Wing lack of respect for their own homeland’s laws/constitution and the degree to which they are willing to conflate (read: ignore) legal immigration with what amounts to an invasion of the United States.

Those of you extolling the virtues of the invasion - have you been to California lately?


Pay attention to Dr Mike’s post, AS. He’s hit the nail squarely on its head. If you think this illegal invasion is a good thing, go visit Kalifornia.


Markets know what skills are useful; Government bureaucrats do not.

Further, manpower is the historical drive of immigration, skills are secondary.
The lack of either one can create bottlenecks in your economy.

And since America is now below birth replacement rate, and has been so in many counties for decades, we need manpower more than ever.

Is cause & effect, we don’t bring in enough manpower legally, so the black market corrects for this lack with illegals.

Word to the wise, Businesses want their workers vetted; they don’t know if the person they’re hiring is a criminal who will steal from them if they’re hiring right off the street. Turnover and risk is heightened.

But they’ll take that risk if the Government isn’t giving them a better option. A better option that Joseph Swing proved is quite easy to offer, and creates security. The very thing you seem to be after.


Funny, isn’t it, how the very SAME people who approve of unrestricted abortion on demand at ANY stage of a pregnancy…and actually ENCOURAGE it…are the same people lauding unrestricted immigration and illegal INVASION in order to provide needed labor???


I’m pro-life, you fail Dave.


Never said you weren’t, AS.


What’s a real dehumanizing connection?

Nativists buy into the population control clap trap.

We can’t have so many humans because the “environment” won’t sustain it. More humans are just a blight on the Earth.

Nice to know you think of us so poorly. You make virtually all economists look like human optimists.


I don’t know anyone who REALLY believes that humans are overpopulating the Earth. Someone once calculated that if you gave everyone (the entire world’s population) just enough space to stand shoulder-to-shoulder, front to back, and put them all in one location, they’d take up about the same space on the planet as Jacksonville, Florida with the rest of the world totally EMPTY!


Apparently CIS.


More mental masturbation from the Left.

Look, AS - The government is often incapable of organizing a one man parade.

BUT - Allowing people to indiscriminately run/swim/be trucked across our border is nuts.

You assume at least two things, both of which are most likely incorrect.

First, you assume government officials would largely ignore business pleas for folks with particular skill sets, be the skill set be engineering, orange picking, or whatever. Given the campaign contributions business makes, it is very doubtful that would be the case. You make reference to “market factors” in controlling the inflow of illegals into the country. Let me point out not everyone crossing our border illegally is looking for a job. There are, however, market factors at work - the presence of cheap labor certainly keeps wages low for those Americans at the low end of the “skill set” range.

Second, promoting immigration that resembles a jail break ignores the importance of vetting those we allow into the country.

Calling me and others on this site “NATIVISTS” because we demand that, a) immigration not only be allowed, but, b) that it be an orderly process conforming to our laws, is absurd.


We were talking about asylees (that’s a real word, Chrome, shut it!) or potential asylees, anyway. Those people receive certain assistance for adapting to life in the US; help finding jobs, finding housing, getting driver’s licenses, expedited citizenship processing, etc. There are man-hours required to provide those, and those man hours must be paid for. There is likely a not-insignificant amount of traveling about by immigration personnel. There is also financial and medical assistance for some through the Office of Refugee Resettlement. I am fine with all of those things for genuine refugees, but they ARE NOT FREE, nor are they limitless.

The fact that you continue to ignore that there are other kinds of ‘immigrants’ does not change the reality on the ground, and the government has not just a right but a responsibility* to screen out those who do not have the willingness or ability to adapt and contribute to American society. (MS13 ain’t coming here to (re)build jack $#!*, except a well-earned reputation for viciousness.)

*This, of course, assumes that the government is acting in good faith to discharge the collective will of the Republic at large, which (of course) requires constant vigilance by the electorate to insure. We don’t get to go on cruise control and “let the government handle it”.


Too often, however, we do precisely THAT…go on “cruise control” because most of us are too busy earning a living and providing a living for our families to constantly monitor what the government is doing…supposedly “in our name.” For much of our history, we relied on the news media to keep us informed about what the government was doing. Since the 1930’s, when many in the media EMBRACED the politics of the USSR and gained fame thereby, that’s been slowly changing until we reached what we’re seeing today…the utter abandonment of objectivity in favor of “progressivism”.