People in there don’t seem to see the future consequences

Pentagon is ran by Generals, and generals want war.

There are a few generals who dont war because they have experienced it.

Like it’s 1876 or something

Pentagon has yet to learn the mistakes since Vietnam.

Let’s hope they learn to

"And continuing with my semi-rant. I don’t think immigrants should have access to benefits unless they suffer from certain metal or physical disabilities"

https://media.tenor.com/images/ac09ed64e2d0fdf598f2ba3a7f45745e/tenor.gif

People with metal disabilities are the worst

Your idea that immigrants shouldn't get benefits sounds pretty dumb though. At least narrow it to taxpayers or something

Immigrants are being used by globalist elites to destabilize the West. It's not their fault obviously, but the outcome will still be the same regardless

if left unchecked

obviously immigrants can be good people, the left always misrepresents the right with that argument. Always jump to the 'ol trusty "racist" or "xenophobe" slur

As if there's zero legitimate point to be made for unchecked immigration

so fucking stupid

What's wrong with having open borders with Mexico?

It worked before we closed them.

In the past, Mexico had an open border.

It allowed workers to come to the U.S. work, and then leave

Because we close the borders

First of all, Mexico is a narco state and cannot control the drug cartels

America was built by immigrants

They can't go back.

So we should screen people before coming in for weapons or drugs (what we already do), and then let them come work during farm seasons and then leave.

They do the Jobs white people don't want to do

are you an NPC?

No I'm a downloadable character

$4.99

It's like you've got a Word Doc opened up with all the most played out Democrat talking points

@Tlwoivnekr

maybe those points are correct and you should listen to them

great argument

You'd have to define exactly what open borders means to you and that's a boring conversation I don't care to get into

Immigration policy in the United States has a complex, convoluted, and in some cases, ugly history. Even so, the events of the past can be used as a guiding principle in modern discussions and help avoid mistakes that were already made; this concept applies heavily to immigration policy and reform. There are several unpleasant developments in U.S. immigration policy, but perhaps the most blaring is the exclusion of the Supreme Court from review of immigration legislation. The Supreme Court is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, body for enforcing civil liberties, for it to be omitted from any legislation, especially that involving people, leaves room for discrimination and corruption. Along with using The Court as a component to immigration legislation, it is in Congress’ best interest to clearly define immigration law, and implement it speedily on national level to avoid broad or misconstrued laws regarding immigration. Also, based off of prior events, it may be best for Congress to take a more liberal and less austere approach to immigration; as the latter approach may yield better results for immigration regulation. All of these factors contribute to the issue and construct of immigration, and immigration reform. It is important to look at immigration with a historical lens, as the events of the past lend themselves strongly to the issue of immigration in contemporary America.

*mic drop*

Immigration in the United States, both in past and present, is in large part controlled by Congress, and in some instances or degrees the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is excluded from the immigration discussion. One of Congress’ enumerated powers, as put forth by the Constitution, is that of naturalization and dealing with the issue of immigration (Article 1, Section 8). Even so, the Supreme Court should not be shirked, as it has a role in all constitutional matters. The 14th amendment to the Constitution provides all people, not just citizens, that they will not be denied the equal protection of the laws. Despite the 14th amendment, many immigrants have been denied equal protection from the law; the most blaring example would be that of Chinese Exclusion. In 1882 Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion law that blatantly barred any Chinese person from becoming citizens or from entering the country. In 1889, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’ plenary power of immigration in Chae Chan Ping v. United States. The Court reasoned that the Chinese are not citizens, but aliens, and that, “the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy” (Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581). With this case, the court affirmed the Chinese Exclusion Act, and propagated the sentiment that Chinese, as well other “aliens,” did not have the same rights as citizens; which is correct in practice, but contradictory to the essence of the 14th amendment. From the late nineteenth century to the present, the Supreme Court’s power in deciding issues on immigration is still constrained. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

GG @KingOfTheMongs, you just advanced to level 1!

And? Nobody is saying we don't need immigration reform. That doesn't mean open borders is a good policy

I'm not reading a bunch of walls of text

^ "i'm not reading" typical trumpist

I just said that illegal aliens aren't awarded basic rights