What is a "victim"?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Humanitarian aide is not the same thing as conquering a nation and replacing their government with your own. Ahh forget it, half of what I'm saying is snark that's going over your head.

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

children were also forced to deal with tear gas.

Its a fact that this "caravan" is mostly men. Even fake news MSNBC says so.

dailycaller.com...

The few women and children were put out front to get filmed and photographed while the men hid in the back and threw rocks. Classic MSM propoganda, appealing to over emotional people which naive individuals such as yourself gobble up.

We know the border patrol set off the tear gas.

They were defending their agents from what was clearly an attack. And before you brush it off as "just some rocks".......

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Theres also stuff like this.

www.theepochtimes.com...

and also this....

truepundit.com...

So whatever, cling to your high horse soapbox so you can pretend to be better than everyone else.

You might want to re-read my post again. It dosn't say what you think it does.

a reply to: Puppylove

Fair enough, my comment about humanitarian aid was also snark.

But yes your probably right I'm so used to literal conversations with right wingers I just assumed you were serious.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I am semi-serious.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No problems...

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Puppylove

There isn't infinite immigration and do really believe a few thousand immigrants from central America will have that much negative affect on a country of 300 million ?

Yes, that may be the current situation, but what happens if the US let's these few thousand in?

For one, you're telling the 500 million people in Central and South America that the US offers hand-outs to anyone who comes and cries at the border without any sort of due process.

Secondly, people from every other "rough" country in the world will be saying, "Why not us too?" Then you have a tidal wave of an issue.

It's like saying, "Don't worry, you just have a little bit of cancer."

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: scojak

No they are already victims, victims fleeing a place they are not safe, they are seeking safety not teargas.

How many countries did they pass through where they weren't being persecuted on their way to assault the border?

If they were in a place they were not safe; why not just relocate legally? They are wrong, and that's not how migration works. You don't just get to force your way into places because you weren't feeling safe. You forcing your way into a place, makes the people of the place you're forcing your way into feel unsafe.

Hence borders. That's why they exist in the first place. That's why there is immigration law in every country in the world. Asylum is for a specific use case, and has to be approved. They knew what they would be running into at the border and proceeded ANYWAY.

You said they are victims already, so -- a women who is beat in her own home should be able to force her way into my home because she was victimized in her own?

Think about it for more than a second, you'll quickly realize your position is a logical fallacy that makes no sense and is not safe for the new victims of the victimized. In other words, the old adage goes; Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't get permission to victimize others because you were a victim. This is antiquated thinking and is not civil.

There are plenty of people IN our country legally, citizens who are in need of humanitarian aid, like Flint Michigan, we should be helping them before helping foreigners who respect us so little to think they can just force their way in.