Excuse me for asking this dumb question but...

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
What I wonder is why we can't do that in countries where they have free healthcare? Like an American shows up in the UK and just says "Hey dawg! Gimme some of that free love. I got tha cancer!"

you might just be unpleasantly surprised. i imagine just like Canada (which has socialized healthcare), that most of these countries would refuse to allow you in, based on your PREEXISTING CONDITION. a condition which would be a drain on already overloaded healthcare systems. that is one of the big reasons Canada typically refuses legal applicants to stay in Canada. even if you have a good job lined up, if say one of your children has a medical condition you will be refused. i have personally known people this has happened to. including one person, who's son's medical condition came down to the fact he needed to eat more food than normal. it was deemed that this could become a medical issue later on in life, and so "goodbye, don't let the door hit you on the way out".

Same in Australia, initially the labour party started bring heaps of migrants into their electorates, so they would have voters that would keep voting for them.

Now, fifty percent of Australians were not born here.

Same with our politicians.

Our infrastructure and housing cannot cope, the government has given away 70 percent of our manufacturing and has forced farmers off the land.

Young people cannot afford to buy houses.

It's the New World Order.

originally posted by: TheLorax
Same in Australia, initially the labour party started bring heaps of migrants into their electorates, so they would have voters that would keep voting for them.

Now, fifty percent of Australians were not born here.

Same with our politicians.

Our infrastructure and housing cannot cope, the government has given away 70 percent of our manufacturing and has forced farmers off the land.

Young people cannot afford to buy houses.


I think we are all becoming slaves to our elected officials.
Today I got my new pension papers from the govt. here. It is only 160 USD paid only every 2 months. Yep, and this in Japan. Sucks to grow old here.

It's the New World Order.

How can people just come into the USA by land, water and air and just say "screw you"I'm here now take me in. Seems like that is how it is for those coming into the country illegally.

Because people are trying to escape the conditions they were born in and are looking for a decent life? Hello? Remember the Puritans? remember taking and stealing the land from the Native Americans?

This was just on the news here. China is buying up properties all around the world and sending there men there to marry the countries women. This is the problem, Chinese have loads of money, and those of us that are in the real estate business know what I'm taking about. (no longer in the business)

What problem, dude? China owns the world. Everyone knows that. Lets see, China has ove 1 billion in terms of population, the United States is at a lowly 320 million citizens or so, with millions upon millions being elderly. You honestly think the U.S. Can compete with the world's Superpower, China? And one day India will pick itself up and it will grow to 1st world conditions further putting the US. in the backlog.

Get used to it.

. China is buying up properties all around the world and sending there men there to marry the countries women.

And? Americans can do the same. American men can just move to Thailand or Iran and buy a wife or something.

Just to bring a little sense to the discussion:

The USA is a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee, and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. The Convention also sets out which people do not qualify as refugees, such as war criminals.

...
Article 1 of the Convention defines a refugee as this:[11][12]

As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

The U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which entered into force on 4 October 1967, defined the term refugee to mean any person within the definition 1951 Convention as if the words “As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and ...” were omitted.[13]

A major part of the above Wikipedia article lists the Righ ts and responsibilities of parties to the Refugee Convention

Back when 'America was great', we understood our obligations under international agreements. One day someone will come along who will 'Make America Great Again'.

a reply to: musicismagic

I think a majority of this screen play is a diversion of the truth,truth is we are squaring up for WW3 and it doesn't look good could happen any minute and in some circumstances already has,plus the fact they know of comming cataclism's from in comming solar system,that from recorded history reaks havoc for 7 straight days,never hear anything of relevance on television,because that is the way it is set up,you hear and believe what they want you to

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: musicismagic

I think a majority of this screen play is a diversion of the truth,truth is we are squaring up for WW3 and it doesn't look good could happen any minute and in some circumstances already has,plus the fact they know of comming cataclism's from in comming solar system,that from recorded history reaks havoc for 7 straight days,never hear anything of relevance on television,because that is the way it is set up,you hear and believe what they want you to

Good post initially. Lost me at the later proposal. My thoughts are that if WW111 happened then all countries that promote immigration may have internal problems.

Kind regards,

bally

originally posted by: bally001

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: musicismagic

I think a majority of this screen play is a diversion of the truth,truth is we are squaring up for WW3 and it doesn't look good could happen any minute and in some circumstances already has,plus the fact they know of comming cataclism's from in comming solar system,that from recorded history reaks havoc for 7 straight days,never hear anything of relevance on television,because that is the way it is set up,you hear and believe what they want you to

Good post initially.

yes and they fall within

I think that is what will happen

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
What I wonder is why we can't do that in countries where they have free healthcare? Like an American shows up in the UK and just says "Hey dawg! Gimme some of that free love. I got tha cancer!"

If you did you would be charged the full fee. It's not free if you aren't actually a UK citizen - did you seriously think otherwise?

Most countries in the world have a policy for seeking asylum, but I think the OP actually knows that.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
What I wonder is why we can't do that in countries where they have free healthcare? Like an American shows up in the UK and just says "Hey dawg! Gimme some of that free love. I got tha cancer!"

Interestingly (perhaps tellingly) none of our deeply concerned UK humanitarians are chiming in to tell me to come on over and make myself at home and soak up all the free love.

Because your statement was wrong, and I'd like to think you actually knew that but then again you could be as stupid as you come across after all.

originally posted by: rnaa
Just to bring a little sense to the discussion:

The USA is a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee, and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. The Convention also sets out which people do not qualify as refugees, such as war criminals.

..
Article 1 of the Convention defines a refugee as this:[11][12]

As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

The U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which entered into force on 4 October 1967, defined the term refugee to mean any person within the definition 1951 Convention as if the words “As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and ...” were omitted.[13]

A major part of the above Wikipedia article lists the Righ ts and responsibilities of parties to the Refugee Convention

Back when 'America was great', we understood our obligations under international agreements. One day someone will come along who will 'Make America Great Again'.

One problem. This was never ratified by the US Congress. As such it's not legally binding on the US Government. And like the Paris accords if it becomes inconvenient to the current government it can be dropped.

a reply to: musicismagic

The short answer to your question is Yes, we have common sense laws. The problem is democrats have no common sense.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Not to stir the pot, but rescue beacons in the desert do have instructions written in Mandarin as well as Spanish. Link

WTH MAN??? that's not stirring the pot, that's me kicking the damn oven over its side and grabbing my ax to finish it off.

I don't have an ax.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: musicismagic

Maybe it's Time for American Citizens to take Matters into their Own hands when it comes to Illegals in this Country , If the Government won't Enforce the Laws , then make their Stay here a Living Hell by Harassing them everywhere they go . This is what it is coming to Sooner or Later God Forbid ......

That is absolutely the most horrible suggestion ever. Why? Because it has happened to me on more than one occasion.

But first let me give you my background. My great ancestor was brought here as an Irish slave,mid 1600s. Through farming and tobacco my family was able to own land and eventually was named a "founding" family. On the other side, my family has deep Iroquois roots. My grandpa fought WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam. My dad served for 40 yrs, 30 in the military and 10 as a civilian for the military. Basically what I'm saying is that if any family is truly and completely American it is us. We are truly Americans.

However.. one look at me, and you might not know that. You might think I am illegal. You might think my kids are, or my mom, or my grandma. Nope, we've pretty much been here the whole time. You would be totally wrong.
Unless you know for a fact someone is not an illegal you should never assume. Some American citizen have been caught up in this. Some citizens are being harassed that live in border states just because of how they look. That is just plain wrong and as Un-American as it gets.

a reply to: musicismagic

Actually it is mostly people that the government has given Temporary Protected Status to who are asking, "will you take me in, please?".

According to ICE's report for 2018, 256,085 people were deported last year. That is over 21,000 deportees a month. That doesn't sound like people are just saying "screw you, I'm here, now take me in."

originally posted by: Ligyron

How can people just come into the USA by land, water and air and just say "screw you"I'm here now take me in. Seems like that is how it is for those coming into the country illegally.

Hello? Remember the Puritans? remember taking and stealing the land from the Native Americans?

But, did they break any immigration laws while doing so? Therein lies the difference and shows your ridiculousness.

a reply to: JAGStorm

If you are NOT a U.S. Citizen , or Possess a Green Card allowing you into the Country Legally , then Sorry Son , you don't Belong here . It's the LAW ...............

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
What I wonder is why we can't do that in countries where they have free healthcare? Like an American shows up in the UK and just says "Hey dawg! Gimme some of that free love. I got tha cancer!"

My roommate spent a lot of time and money to become a Permanent Resident of Canada. Not exactly Citizenship, but certainly carrying with it some benefits. It was really, really difficult. You essentially have to already be employed in Canada before they'll accept you as a Permanent Resident, and otherwise prove that you are already a productive member of society with a decent bank account and not just some poor slob trying to get free healthcare and sponge off their government.

However, if you want to go live in Mexico (even though they don't have free anything except kidnappings), it's not hard. The borders are there to keep people in, not out. A few bribes to the Federales, and you're in.

originally posted by: ntech

originally posted by: rnaa
Just to bring a little sense to the discussion:

The USA is a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee, and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. The Convention also sets out which people do not qualify as refugees, such as war criminals.

..
Article 1 of the Convention defines a refugee as this:[11][12]

As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

The U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which entered into force on 4 October 1967, defined the term refugee to mean any person within the definition 1951 Convention as if the words “As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and ...” were omitted.[13]

A major part of the above Wikipedia article lists the Righ ts and responsibilities of parties to the Refugee Convention

Back when 'America was great', we understood our obligations under international agreements. One day someone will come along who will 'Make America Great Again'.

One problem. This was never ratified by the US Congress. As such it's not legally binding on the US Government. And like the Paris accords if it becomes inconvenient to the current government it can be dropped.

Except that the problem with your argument is that the US DID ratify the 1967 "Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees" on 1 Nov 1968. United Nations Treaty Collection: 5. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (status as at 08-04-2019)

The ratification of the 1967 protocol assumes agreement to the 1954 convention by IMPLICATION because the Protocol was an advancement on the 1954 Convention - the Protocol assumes the Convention as its starting point. The Convention of 1954 applied ONLY to European refugees displaced by WW2. The Protocol of 1968 generalized the meaning of 'refugee' and eliminated the geographic limits of Convention's application.

So, while it is true that the US did not ratify the 1954 Convention, the US DID ratify the 1967 Protocol which broadened the scope of the original Convention while keeping in place all the rights and responsibilities of both refugees and asylum countries.

The US did place some reservations on its ratification, as all nations are allowed to do.

United States of America
With the following reservations in respect of the application, in accordance with article I of the Protocol, of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, done at New York on 28 July 1951:
"The United States of America construes Article 29 of the Convention as applying only to refugees who are resident in the United States and reserves the right to tax refugees who are not residents of the United States in accordance with its general rules relating to non-resident aliens.
The United States of America accepts the obligation of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 24 of the Convention except insofar as that paragraph may conflict in certain instances with any provisions of title II (old age, survivors' and disability insurance) or title XVIII (hospital and medical insurance for the aged) of the Social Security Act. As to any such provision, the United States will accord to refugees lawfully staying in its territory treatment no less favorable than is accorded aliens generally in the same circumstances."

In other words, the US vowed to treat refugees the same way it treats all resident aliens - after all, a refugee is a resident alien so their tax status is the same as far as the US is concerned.

a reply to: musicismagic

How can people just come into the USA by land, water and air and just say "screw you"I'm here now take me in.

I think I can actually explain that one. A long time ago, slavery was quite a common thing on all continents, practiced by all peoples.

Thats it. That's literally The Reason.

Because slavery was a thing in the past, every nation with a white majority population is to be severely punished and have everything taken from them, especially the most powerful, most proud, most generous of them all: the Americans.

You might be thinking, "but everyone participated in slavery, so shouldn't Everyone be punished...? And after all, if it wasnt for American Slavery, a lot of people today would not be enjoying a 1st Class life in the most wonderful place on Earth. European Majority nations give not only the highest dollar amount in foreign aid, but the largest percentage meaning they give more of what they have, and unlike other ethnicities, they allow other people to come live with them in their nations"

And I would have to agree with those facts, but unfortunately, the rest of the world is incredibly racist and backwards thinking.

Someday we hope that they will benefit from being in proximity to whites and shed their racism as we have and welcome other peoples to live in their countries. (with reasonable limitation of course! the idea is to make friends and learn from eachother and grow as a more balanced well rounded person, Not to entirely change the demographic of an entire region!)

Sometimes our kindness works against us though. People tend to get jealous and it breeds hatred. "Im over here greedily hoarding, signing up for every free program, doing the least work possible, stealing, lying, and youre giving away what you have and working your tail off and youre STILL happier than me!? I jist don't get it... I'm doing everything the smart way! F you man! F YOU!!!"

And then there is the matter of being taken advantage of for your kindness. So, it can be a weakness. But I like to think, in the long term, it is a strength.

It's all human nature though. Jealousy and taking advantage of others is something we all do to some degree. Its a manifestation of our Lower Nature, but still a part of every living human who would all react the same under similar conditions.


It doesn't help matters that, in order to consolidate political power, you have actual whites out there riling up crowds of POC, by saying # like "You all deserve reparations! Enough is enough! My white privilege is SO unfair to you all! So in order to fix that, lets focus our rage on the 90% of whites who have nothing, but dont get mad at me or my rich friends who actually have enough wealth to aupport 5 or more families cause we are the ones helping you. What has that poor sob in the trailer park done for you lately? So when his son is competing against your less qualified son for a job or college acceptance, we will take it away from him and give it to you, and we'll just go ahead and call that 'Justice' "

Yeah so then every 20 years we can have a whole new generation demanding THEIR reparations? I don't think so.


I think the real story behind the college admittance scandal with "Aunt Becky" is that these white rich parents were forced, or at least, encouraged to believe that their only hope was, to cheat. You see, being that their child was white, they knew they could never get a fair shake doing it the right way.

These Affirmitive Action policies are unfair. When confronted with an unfair situation, people find it more acceptable to break the rules. Plain and simple.