Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "Arrests At Border Will Set New Record In 2022—Driven By Surge From Distant Countries" video.

QUESTION: Okay, some people in some nations have it rough, life threatening rough at times. So, why don't the neighboring countries take those asylum seekers in? Why should the USA be required to take them in if the USA is not a neighboring country to those previous asylum seekers? In other words, concerning Venezuela, why doesn't other South American countries take them in, or any of the countries even north through to Mexico? Why should the USA be required to take them in? An inquiring mind would like to know.
4
Consider the following: (Economy): "IF" the living bodily existence of an American citizen is utilized as backing to America's currency, then as there are more American citizens, more currency can be printed.
2
Let's say it takes $1000.00 a month to live on (just for illustration purposes). 2 people in the economy would need $2000.00 for that economy. Millions of people in the economy, $1000.00 times millions so that in theory each and every person would have $1000.00 to live on. Including the size of the population as backing to a nation's currency would seem to help determine how much currency should be in a specific economy at any one time.
2
Basically, American citizens are an asset, not a liability. (At least as far as determining how much currency to print for the economy).
2
Just throwing this out there, USA invades and conquers Mexico so that the USA has a smaller southern border to build a wall on and to protect. This would certainly stop ALL immigrants from Mexico entering the USA as there would be no more Mexico.
1
Oh and also, all new 'immigrants' could be sent to former Mexico to live. Factories could be set up to provide them jobs.
1
Mexico is a big country. You mean to tell me that all of Mexico is hostile to the population that people in Mexico have to flee Mexico to come to the USA? Really???
1
@NegritaBrujita It's a logical and rational question, isn't it? If the asylum seekers need to leave their own country due to life threatening issues, well then, the neighboring countries should be the first to take them in. Now sure, other countries like the USA could offer those neighboring countries help if needed, but it seems to me that under asylum circumstances, only neighboring countries of the asylum seekers should be required to take them in. And in the case of asylum seekers south of Mexico, well is all of Mexico hostile to it's population? If not, then Mexico should take them in before the USA does or offers to.
1
@freedomfyodor I am an American in America with free speech, so to answer your statement: "NO". Fly away 'skyboy'.
1