General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Face the Nation
comments

Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Face the Nation" channel.

Trump was the one that pulled out of the debate, what nonsense is this?
20
Yup, not "border czar," not to "manage the border," but to negotiate with our neighbors to improve conditions in those countries, which she did.
13
He cancelled it before blaming the other side for cancelling it. It's how he rolls. He never takes responsibility for his own actions.
11
@FeelingPeculiar They seem to have gotten that stuff right, which parts specifically do you think they got wrong?
9
She in fact was not.
8
Lol, as if Trump reads his homework.
6
@edwardcuevas6974 She was never appointed "head of the border," that is the President and Secretary of Homeland Security. She was just assigned to negotiate with southern countries to help keep their people at home, which she did successfully.
6
Where was she called "the border czar?" Look up the official White House release when she was appointed to negotiate on the border, no mention of that term.
5
@jasonyankovec8541 She did. Migrants from the countries she worked with have fallen over the years. There was never a path to completely cutting off immigration from those countries, if it were that easy then why didn't Trump do it while in office? Why did immigration go UP over his four year?
5
@DanielGibbons-v9k It's impossible to "scrub references" like that. Members of the media called her that, it was never an official term.
4
Mainstream media called her that. It was never an actual role she held.
4
@peterponcedeleon3368 Actually, we're mostly just selling off military surplus to Ukraine, and then buying newer, better replacement materials for the US military, making our own forces stronger and pumping billions into US companies and their employees. It's sort of a win-win scenario for the US. Why would we want to offload those benefits to Europe?
4
@Kg-yl5vy You do understand that even if companies did move manufacturing back to the US, you would STILL be paying 2-3 times as much for those goods, right? The whole reason they wanted to outsource in the first place is because things are so much cheaper to produce overseas.
4
@playertwo1516 Tariffs are an economic tool. You don't use them at random, you use them at specific targets with specific goals in mind. In some cases a tariff is a good idea, because it protects an industry that we are already doing quite well, or it puts political pressure on the other country to make a political change that we want. But broad tariffs on consumer goods is not a good idea.
4
You do realize that abortion and child care are some of the highest priority issues in this election, right?
4
@H43339 This is what they used to say about the Irish and Italians.
4
Who said that?
4
He gets it, he just doesn't care.
4
About what?
3
@vavictus Those are all American issues, since America lives in the same world as those other countries, and ignoring them causes future harm to America.
3
@calvinwood7120 What Fox News calls someone is not particularly relevant to anything. The point is that it was never her actual role.
3
@ItsJustMe-nq1dg No, he did not, because it's not an actual government role. He gave her a specific job to do involving immigration, and she did it successfully. Look up the White House briefing for the day she was assigned. It's on their website.
3
@mattl2843 The only risk to the US credit score is Republican threats to default on our loans. Prior to that, the US had a perfect credit rating and could take out loans at almost zero interest.
3
About what?
3
@KWCHope People in the media calling her a "border czar" does not magically make it an actual title. The White House put out a press release on that day that explained what she was intended to do, and "manage the border" was not one of those things.
3
@H43339 We can afford to take in a lot more than we do, a fully settled immigrant provides more value to the US economy than they take. The only actual problem we face now is that we don't have the border judges available to process all these immigrants in a timely manner. This leaves most of them waiting around for trial dates, prevented by law from seeking work. If they could be processed into legal US residents, then they could start getting jobs and paying their own way in society. If you truly insist on keeping them out of the country though, I'm afraid that the only solution would be to improve the countries they came from to the point where they could stay there. Nobody WANTS to trek through hundreds of miles of inhospitable terrain, a journey that many die on, but they have literally no other option at the moment. Provide them a better option, and they'll stop coming. Until then, it's like the war on drugs, you can't fight the supply, you can only fight the demand.
3
"Why are we not making hiring people whom do not have a right to work in our country a federal offense and if so enforcing those laws removing the incentive to come here. " This is already illegal. You would be changing nothing. "The asilum system was not put into place to allow millions of people to use it as a way to come here" It was created EXACTLY to allow people in need to come here, regardless of their numbers. If you believe too many people are applying for asylum, the solution is not to deny them safety here, the solution is to help ensure that they will be safe in their home countries. " It's no wonder Russia felt safe to attack Ukraine and later encouraged Iran to get Hamas to attack and now China feels embolden to take Taiwan. We are becoming the laughing stock of the world." Yes, four years under Trump and with MAGA Republicans filling congress have really caused damage to the US reputation around the world, but the Biden administration's stronger stance against Russia and China have put both countries on the back foot.
3
@JesusHammer That's overly simplistic thinking for very complex problems. Become more mature.
3
If you had looked it up, you would know that you are wrong.
3
@davidpulido2942 She was never appointed by the President to "handle the border."
3
@sethrich2790 Trump says a dozen more consequential lies before breakfast. If lies are what bother you, then Walz would at least be the better of the available options.
3
@marlonestrella5054 "I did not have sexual relations with that couch."
3
What did they get wrong?
2
@webporta-1 We mostly don't send cash to Ukraine, we send surplus military hardware, which mostly goes back into US companies to refresh our own stockpiles with newer and better stuff. The same could not be said for a border wall. Besides which, people would just cross through/over/under any border wall, so it would not actually stop immigration. People will only go around when going around is a reasonable option. If there are no gaps, they will create their own.
2
@webporta-1 So, "war crimes" then. Yeah, that sounds like something dumb enough for a Republican to do it.
2
Yeah, if not for good people in the government holding him back, Trump just would have done exactly what Putin asked.
2
@jeffreystarcher7007 Well obviously they couldn't have a live debate while he's being Typhoid Mary over there. Nobody wants to die.
2
@bobbiperry5422 That has nothing to do with anything. Biden was perfectly willing to debate, it was Trump that SAID he did not want to do a virtual debate, and there was no other option available once be became a spreader. Don't try to twist this into a Biden problem.
2
@ContinuousRefinement The lie was the one about the cats and dogs. That was a lie. He and his boss kept repeating it.
2
Nope. It remains something that only idiots believe in.
2
@webporta-1 That is not true either. You seem to believe a lot of untrue things. I wonder why that is? Poor education? Poor parenting? Poor ability to parse the news you take in?
2
@webporta-1 I'm not a member of the MAGA cult. I do not deny reality like they do, I accept it.
2
@jonSmith-xv6tx The US national debt is not a problem. There are plenty of countries in the world with debt to GDP ratios many times higher than the US that are perfectly stable. The only thing that can threaten the US economy is Republican threats to default on those debts, which have harmed our credit rating considerably over the past few years, and could continue to do so. If you are concerned about America's debt, make sure to always vote Democrat.
2
@webporta-1 They aren't US states, but they are on the same planet as US states, and what happens in them can cause harm or benefits to US states, so it is in the interests of US states to keep them stable and functional.
2
@calvinwood7120 Then why did the White House never call her that? There was a whole speech talking about what her role would be, you can read the transcripts of it yourself, at no point is that term mentioned.
2
@rl192 Here is the direct quote from Biden on Mar 24, 2021: "In addition to that, there’s about five other major things she’s handling, but I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border. . . . "And so, this increase has been consequential, but the Vice President has agreed — among the multiple other things that I have her leading — and I appreciate it — agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept re- — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders." You can read the full transcript for more, but again, he was only assigning her to meet with the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, to improve their countries in ways that would involve people staying there. And she succeeded at that.
2
@ItsJustMe-nq1dg I have looked it up, that's how I know that it was never an official term. Look, I get it, when you're immersed in the swamp long enough, you believe that's all there is to the world, but come up for air!
2
@bunjijumper5345 They are not killing ducks either.
2
@bunjijumper5345 They might be. Why would you think that would make any difference? What we do know is that there is no actual evidence that it is happening, and what accounts have been made seem to be pranks.
2
@bunjijumper5345 Why do you keep bringing up the speaker's race?
2
@mattl2843 The amount of money that we give to other countries is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall US budget, and it's money well spent because it heads off future problems that would be MORE expensive to solve. Foreign investment is putting America first. Also, the amount that Americans spend on goods at home has little to do with the national debt, it was mostly related to the drops in Saudi and Russian oil supply over the past few years, and various supply chain issues related to the pandemic. They would have occurred the same regardless of US policy at the time. The only change that US politics has made to that situation is that Biden's policies have allowed the US economy to ride out these problems a lot better than most countries in the world have. It would have been a disaster if we'd had a conservative government over the past few years like the UK had.
2
@memepope3644 Plenty of people are insisting that it was official, but at least the two of us can agree on that part. She was never "in charge of the border" either though. That was Mayorkas.
2
@KforFreedom If Trump sets significant tariffs on a good, they can't just eat those tariffs. If a product has a 20% profit margin, for example, and has a tariff higher than 20% on it, then they would lose money on every unit sold if they just ate that tariff. Trump has talked about 60% and 100% tariffs in the past, and you might see companies eating some of that where they can, but it would still lead to 50-100% price increases on those products.
2
Because it would be horrible to America to implement it now, just as it will be horrible to implement in April. Usually when a government wants to cause businesses to do something, they put the deadline one, five, ten years away, giving them time to build the facilities and supply chains to solve the problem. In this case, he's just blowing a giant hole into the ship and telling them to figure it out before it sinks.
2
Crude oil demand is higher today than at any time in human history. It's just that supply has risen higher than that demand, similar to 2019. Id demand has been falling anywhere lately, it's been in China. It's always important to remember that oil prices are ALWAYS a global value, and the cost of oil in Ohio rarely has anything to do with US policy.
2
Yup, we could never survive a Trump/Vance administration.
2
They should have had realtime fact checking.
2
@westentrance Ok, so worth bringing up, right? They did also bring up the economy and immigration and other things too.
2
Because that's just how people look on TV. I mean, you could see from the wide shots that no teleprompters existed, so why ask?
2
@TJ-zs1pl Yup! Faux News will be like "how does this keep happening that nobody wants our sociopaths to rule over them?!"
2
Different time, different situation. We're talking about the present here.
2
@ncsludgefactory5445 There is a distinction between "saying something that pisses someone off," and "saying things that promote violence and discrimination toward others." What do you believe is typically considered hate speech, but that you do not think should be worthy of that distinction?
2
@ You completely misunderstand the point of the Constitution. It was intended to protect the People, both from the government, AND from the people. If someone is using the Constitution to allow people to harm others, as hate speech does, then that is using the Constitution wrong.
2
@scottm838 That never happened though, so you remembering it happening is a sign of delusion, not good memory.
2
Trump never put America before Trump.
2
They already do thwart those illegal crossings. They catch and process all those who cross illegally. The issue is that Republicans have been defunding border judges for decades now, so the court systems cannot keep up with the current flow of migrants, leaving most of them awaiting court dates for years. If we could process their claims faster, then we could deport them faster, or allow them to start participating in the economy faster.
2
CEOs suddenly dropping their work week to one hour.
2
@jimk9769 Do you mean how they didn't want Trump getting everyone sick? That's not some "liberal conspiracy," that's just common sense. They could have just held the debate virtually, MOST people are interacting virtually these days, it's not a big deal, but Trump was scare he wouldn't be able to ramble during Biden's time without getting his mic cut.
1
@jimk9769 Biden doesn't need a teleprompter, he stomped Trump in the first debate without one. I don't know why you guys seem so obsessed over the idea that in a virtual debate both candidates will have questions asked to them virtually.
1
Yup, he needs to stop dancing around the topic and make clear that Trump has ZERO place in America's future.
1
The Democrats have a fully practical solution, it's always just been an issue of Republicans not wanting to support those solutions, because they don't want to allow immigration. Meanwhile the economy requires those immigrants to function, so they also cannot stop the flow of illegal migrants. So instead they just grandstand on the issue without actually doing anything. If you want to solve the border crisis, you will never get that from Republicans. The only solutions involve electing more Democrats.
1
@tedlewis309 The problem is that Republicans have held up proper immigration reform for decades now, so the amount that we allow in legally is WAY below both the supply and the demand side of the equation. If you believe that the answer is "they should come in legally or not at all," then the first step to that has to be to MASSIVELY increase the amount of legal immigration slots per year.
1
If Republicans suddenly couldn't make false claims about immigrants, then what would they even have left to do?
1
@erikschuster4293 Every single 1860 Republican would be a Democrat today, and every single 1860 Democrat would be a Republican today. Don't try to take credit for the efforts of people over 100 years ago, stand behind your own record today.
1
When have we ever done this?
1
@jeffreystarcher7007 I do not trust Trump's doctors. He has a habit of picking doctors that will say what he wants them to say, and signing them up to NDAs. Having an MD doesn't mean they are infallible, he put a radiologist in charge of his infectious disease response, instead of, you know, an infectious disease expert or something.
1
No such thing happened. You might be thinking of oxy, which is a different drug, and that case was intended as a settlement that would give billions to the victims. It's fair to agree or disagree with the settlement offered, but it was at least well-meaning.
1
@loldotsarefun They are similar drugs and have similar harmful impacts. I don't think there is anyone in government who is not committed to doing what we can to fight these drugs.
1
Sociopathy is a hell of a drug.
1
@KforFreedom He is though. He knows that, why don't you?
1
@webporta-1 Exactly. If we ignore Russia now, then we'll have to plan another D-Day in a few years. You can't just ignore the rest of the world.
1
@marclehman1032 I'll not.
1
@annscott900 That was Neville Chamberlain's philosophy, at least. . .
1
@NateDogg2888 That really doesn't work out, due to politics. It's hard to get a majority to agree on any one topic, which is why you need to bundle several things together, so that everyone gets something that they want out of it.
1
@annscott900 The war in Ukraine has significant bearing on America, it's just more complex than some people are capable of understanding. This is about playing chess, while some people can only think in checkers. If you are still confused, you might want to research the book "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie."
1
@DanielGibbons-v9k Ok, so we agree that it was never a position that she held. That's all people are saying. She had one specific role relative to the border, and she did that one job successfully. Nobody is arguing that people in the media never called her that.
1
@ItsJustMe-nq1dg Her job was to get the numbers down from a few specific countries. She got those numbers down. What was Trump's excuse?
1
@MynewTennesseeHome Exactly! Plenty of people called her that online, even though it was never an actual role she had. It's easy to find people calling her that, impossible to find any official source giving her that title.
1
@MynewTennesseeHome No, he did not.
1
@JacobsNews "President of the Senate" is a position with relatively little power. it casts tie breaking votes and has a ceremonial role in confirming election results, but unless there is a tie, they basically do nothing.
1
@markwhite8332 Trump would certainly know.
1
@markwhite8332 A younger one, at least.
1
@calvinwood7120 Again, read the comments, plenty of people are claiming it is. Plenty of people are claiming it was something Biden called her, even though he never did. That is what is being fact checked. The fact remains that the only mandate she was given was to visit our neighbors and negotiate with them, which she did successfully. The "expanded role" that you discussed was placed on her from outside the actual administration.
1
@calvinwood7120 Again, the only ones who "anointed her with a title" were the press, mostly on the right. The While House never "anointed her" beyond "Vice President. She was given a job to do, and she did that job well. That job did not come with a title attached. Also, anyone who claimed that she had responsibilities on the border was wrong, the official release describing her role did not include any elements of the border itself. Pointing to media sources that got something wrong in no way reflects poorly on this administration itself.
1
@calvinwood7120 Hey, that's my line. Get your own.
1
@calvinwood7120 I have one, I'm not MAGA. Keep up.
1
Like pickled herring and vegimite.
1
They don't ask, because they already know the answer.
1
@stevehill3373 It's a media shorthand term, that does not make it an actual government role.
1
@rl192 Who said she was never called that? The point people were making is that it was never accurate to call her that.
1
@rl192 But the fact remains that it was never accurate, because she was never "put in charge of the border." You can find the White House transcript of the briefing in which she was given some duties related to immigration, and what it does, and does not say.
1
@rl192 When was she given that authority? Certainly not publicly. In public, she was only given authority to visit our neighboring countries and negotiate with them to improve the conditions there. Her role had nothing to do with the border itself. Where did you hear that she was granted the broad powers you're talking about? What was the date of that?
1
@rl192 Read the White House transcript from the day they mentioned it. No "border czar," no "full power of the President." You are massively exaggerating her role, as did plenty of people on the right, because they wanted her to fail at their imaginary position. If you only get your news from unreliable sources, then don't expect others to consider you well informed.
1
@rl192 You didn't read it. I understand. No, what I said was she was given A job, which is different than the job that you believe she had, and in the job she actually had, she succeeded. And again, NOBODY denies that the press called her that, so I don't know why you keep insisting that they have.
1
@foreverlearn3866 Whatever video you're talking about is in no way official. Nobody is arguing that there weren't people calling her that, only that it was never accurate.
1
@foreverlearn3866 She handled the role she was given regarding immigration successfully, because migration from those countries has reduced. It was never her job to handle all aspects of immigration, that is the job of the President and SoHS.
1
@ItsJustMe-nq1dg Which people did they "pick up and fly in?" Are you talking about the ones flown from Texas to other states? That was the Florida governor, for some reason. And no, it was never her job to "handle the border." That was the job of the President and SoHS.
1
@ItsJustMe-nq1dg You're trying to change the argument. Nobody ever argued that she was never called that. Obviously she was, mostly by those on the right. The fact check is that it was never a role she actually held.
1
@ItsJustMe-nq1dg The position Biden gave her had nothing to do with "border czar" though. Harris was given the role of negotiating with three of our southern neighbors, no more, no less. Anyone claiming she had larger responsibilities regarding immigration than that is wrong. And "most libs" are not claiming she was never called that in the media, they are saying it was never accurate to call her that, which remains a fact. I said HE did not call her that, because he never called her that.
1
@ItsJustMe-nq1dg But she was not placed in charge of that policy area. She was only given a narrow mission within that policy area. At no point did she have any authority over the border itself or US border policy. That was not her role in the administration.
1
@ItsJustMe-nq1dg Nope. That's what you were TOLD was "straight from Biden's mouth" by people you really shouldn't be listening to. If you'd actually bothered to check what Biden actually said, it had nothing to do with the border itself, he was sending her to negotiate with three of our southern neighbors to improve living conditions there, end of story. Harris succeeded at that task. The words out of Biden's mouth can be found on the White House webpage. I'll wait.
1
@ItsJustMe-nq1dg Joe Biden, March 24, 2021: ". . . In addition to that, there’s about five other major things she’s handling, but I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border. . . . "And so, this increase has been consequential, but the Vice President has agreed — among the multiple other things that I have her leading — and I appreciate it — agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept re- — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders." She was meant to deal with their borders, not ours.
1
Joe Biden, March 24, 2021: ". . . In addition to that, there’s about five other major things she’s handling, but I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border. . . . "And so, this increase has been consequential, but the Vice President has agreed — among the multiple other things that I have her leading — and I appreciate it — agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept re- — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders." She was meant to deal with their borders, not ours.
1
@bunjijumper5345 It is hateful to say that, since it implies that they are killing ducks, which was never true. Only hateful people believe that it was true.
1
@bunjijumper5345 No, it's racist that people are claiming Hatiains are doing these things without evidence. Anyone making such claims is racist for believing that they are true and spreading those rumors. The race of the speaker isn't relevant, only what he is saying. So I ask you again, why do you keep bringing up the race of the person speaking?
1
Yeah, this guy has zero patriotism.
1
"Oh, I don't want to actually fix it, I just want to complain about it to make my political opponents look bad."
1
You can't trust AI videos of Biden, apparently.
1
@CryptoKevin No, they pay the tariff at Walmart, when the item is priced several times what it is now.
1
@BrianM-44041 China doesn't use child labor, although their overall labor conditions are certainly not great. The major cost savings though is just that the cost of living is lower there. We can't replicate that in the US. They can afford to pay people $1 an hour and those people can go home and live off that dollar. That would be impossible in the US, because there are enough people making middle class incomes that this is where the prices of things are based.
1
@Kg-yl5vy The problem is that there is no scenario in which it balances out in America's interests. If manufacturers pay American workers to produce cheap manufactured goods, then the prices of those goods would have to rise to above what those employees could afford. There is no scenario in which America could become a home for cheaply produced basic goods again, there is always some aspect of the US employee's life that would be on balance worse off than they are today if that was a route we tried to force. If the US does any manufacturing, then it would need to be in high skill, high value products like computer chips and solar panels and cars and that sort of thing, not socks and toasters. Ultimately though, the US should not be a manufacturing nation in the 21st Century, we've left that role behind, and that is a good thing for Americans. What we need to do is figure out how to feed people who are not needed for manufacturing jobs. We have the money for that, we just need to distribute it fairly.
1
@Kg-yl5vy Also, you say that you believe in a free market where competition is king, you do understand that THIS market is the result of that? Tariffs are the opposite of a free market, because it's putting a thumb on the scales and saying that some companies should be competitively priced with others, even if their production costs are 2-3 times as high. You can claim to support free markets OR tariffs, never both.
1
@KforFreedom No, it's not "part of the negotiating," it's simple math. They can't charge less than it costs them to get to the customers, and customers can't afford to pay more than a certain amount. The math will never work out on most products. There can only be negotiation when the sell price is higher than the manufacturing price, which is not what would happen here.
1
@Kg-yl5vy Well, keep in mind, within our lifetime, there will be no human labor anymore, so that's the world we need to be preparing for anyway. Moving Heaven and Earth to try and let Americans make drinking straws for ten times as much as China makes them is a massive waste of time and effort. Let's be clear, this was never a sound economic theory, it was only a way to sound "mean to China." because his audience likes when he sounds mean to China, even when his policies make no sense.
1
@Kg-yl5vy Within our lifetimes, human labor will be unnecessary to the economy. We have to be prepared for that phase. Efforts to boost US manufacturing is a short term gain, at most, and not worth the hassle.
1
@Kg-yl5vy What nonsense are you talking about? We have plenty of resources to support everyone, whether they are productive or not. All we need is the political will to make it happen.
1
@peterponcedeleon3368 What did you have trouble understanding? If you have any actual questions, I'd be happy to answer them, Knowledge is power.
1
Closing the border would cost the US half a billion dollars per day. That would be idiotic.
1
@foreverlearn3866 He was taking notes to keep track of the various lies he had to correct when it got to be his turn. He still missed a bunch of them, like when Vance credited Obamacare for one of his relatives getting health care, but implied that Trump had anything to do with that, when he accomplished nothing while in office.
1
@foreverlearn3866 Vance was pumping them too fast to keep up with. Walz is a teacher, soldier, coach, congressman, and governor, not a stenographer.
1
Lol.
1
@LenOliver-yz6os More than the current migrants are, at least. But you're right that most immigrants, especially of the current batch, cause less crime than the people already here.
1
@TJ-zs1pl How so?
1
@TJ-zs1pl Yup! Blue wave.
1
@JackArkitekt Lol, keep dreaming. The only seats Republicans pick up are the ones they rig.
1
Nobody is asking for "congress to do nothing." The Democrats want congress to do something. The only issue here is that Republicans are trying to LINK border stuff to the Ukraine funding, which is unacceptable, and also that the things Republicans want to do about the border will not actually HELP the border problems. If you want to solve the issues on the southern border, then pass Democratic plans to solve those problems.
1
Many countries have open borders. It's not an issue. Having a national border does not mean that you need to prevent people from crossing it.
1
@camomaxx There is absolutely nothing in international or US law that says you can't travel through multiple countries to claim asylum, MOST asylum seekers around the world travel through multiple countries before settling down. And in many cases "because you're poor" is an acceptable reason to seek asylum, because if you are unable to meet your basic needs in a given country, then that is an asylum-worthy reason to leave it. Again, if you don't want these people coming to the US, then the only way to do that is to help make their home country, OR countries along their way, livable enough that they can stop and stay there instead. You can't just expect them to NOT want a better life for themselves and their children.
1
@camomaxx One, you can claim asylum because you are poor if that has led to an inability to survive in your home country. Two, there is ZERO need to do that in the first country you arrive in, you just made that up because you want it to be true. and as for applying to enter the US, that would be a great idea, but due to Republican stonewalling over the past few decades, we currently do not offer nearly as many immigration slots as people trying to enter, so for most migrants, it is literally not an option, so they have to resort to plan B. If you want to reduce illegal immigration, there are only two ways to do it. 1. Make conditions better in their home country so that they don't need to come here to survive, and 2. massively increase the amount of legal visas given out so that more people who want to enter legally are allowed to do so. There is no solution in which less migrants enter the US.
1
Unfortunately, in the age of Faux News and MAGA, it has become an entirely left wing value. But I agree with you that it shouldn't be.
1
How so? Congress tends to hate DC, and would not care if there were a lot of immigrants there. It would only hurt DC residents, who have done nothing wrong.
1
@EOJ111 Most targets of hate speech do nothing to make themselves hated. That's the problem. Hate speech is when people hate without any justification.
1
@boogiewoogie9770 What was to blame for the Holocaust? A rise of populist nationalism.
1
@78md74 That is a misunderstanding of the Constitution. It is not intended to defend hate speech. It is intended to defend controversial speech, yes, but not all controversial speech is hate speech.
1
@terryt2728 Those that disagree often also dismiss Trump's obvious dementia.
1
@78md74 And many who have read it do not understand that there are still reasonable limitations on those things, that the law takes an "open mind, but not so open your brain fall out" philosophy.
1
Meanwhile Trump wants to have them competing with people in China making shoes for $1 an hour.
1
It's been 20 years of the same story, because Republicans refuse to get anything done on the border. They prefer to just use it as a campaign wedge.
1
@scottm838 Nobody in the Trump/Biden debate did a good job.
1
@harleydavidson2218 It really doesn't take as much time as you seem to think, but then I don't have to sound out every word to understand it.
1
Or so Putin would tell you.
1
@marlonestrella5054 He said that, right there in the video. And he never claimed to have been part of those protests, just that he had been there when they were happening, which he believed was the case.
1
@marlonestrella5054 Like a normal human being.
1
@H43339 Because that would be both illegal and extremely destructive to the US economy. The US economy requires a significant number of new immigrants each year to sustain it, and billions of dollars in trade cross the border every week. Even Republicans don't actually want to close the border, they just want to complain about "open borders."
1