- Oct 2, 2020
- 26,105
- 14,437
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Did you read the article?Why shouldn't they be here?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Did you read the article?Why shouldn't they be here?
The Biden administration wanted to bypass the time-consuming thorough vetting of each individual and bring in as many as possible for future Democrat votes. By electing Trump the people resisted this plot. Under this scheme left-wing organizations could say they were financially sponsoring these individuals, they could pay for their tickets in and then the people would enter the country and go on the public dole. The only difference was that these individuals would not be in the "illegal" numbers provided to the public. Some of you know I'm a great advocate for government transparency, in many cases government secrecy is not about national security but about hiding information from the public, particularly information that the public would not react well to. This was the case here, the Biden administration refused to give us the numbers of how many were being dropped off in particular cities. Here is an article from a couple of years ago:Why shouldn't they be here?
The amount of cruelty coming from the Trump administration is staggering. With each passing day it reaches another level.
I did. It doesn't answer the question. You don't want them here, but that wasn't what I asked.Did you read the article?
One sentence in, and you're already just making stuff up.The Biden administration wanted to bypass the time-consuming thorough vetting of each individual and bring in as many as possible for future Democrat votes.
All 500,000 people that this covers were here legally.At least there's nothing immoral about this.
...I'm not allowed to get into heaven illegally, God says I have to go through the proper channels, by avoiding sin, and abstaining from a list of activities, that are against the rules... Or else, be cast away.
In the same way, those who come here to do illegal activities, or break in illegally must be cast away.
My understanding is that their "temporary" permission to be in the country was terminated. Now, they must go back to where they came from. Is this not correct?All 500,000 people that this covers were here legally.
What I want is irrelevant. According to the article they're here because Biden did something he shouldn't have.I did. It doesn't answer the question. You don't want them here, but that wasn't what I asked.
I believe Biden placed them on "parole". And their parole term has expired.All 500,000 people that this covers were here legally.
"President Joe Biden had touted the protected status scheme as a way to ease pressure on the US-Mexico border". "Biden touted the plan as a "safe and humane" way to ease pressure on the crowded US-Mexico border. But the Department of Homeland Security stressed Friday that the scheme was "temporary."Where does it say that in the article?
That doesn't say or even imply that President Biden did something he shouldn't have."President Joe Biden had touted the protected status scheme as a way to ease pressure on the US-Mexico border". "Biden touted the plan as a "safe and humane" way to ease pressure on the crowded US-Mexico border. But the Department of Homeland Security stressed Friday that the scheme was "temporary."
It seems to me that he shouldn't have perpetrated a scheme.That doesn't say or even imply that President Biden did something he shouldn't have.
Scheme in the context of that article means a plan or program of action. It doesn't imply any wrong doing.It seems to me that he shouldn't have perpetrated a scheme.
Okay.Scheme in the context of that article means a plan or program of action. It doesn't imply any wrong doing.
That article came from Agence France-Presse (AFP), which being based in the EU, would use the British English definition of the word "scheme." The use of the term "scheme" in that article wasn't meant to be taken in a way that President Biden did something he shouldn't have or that he did anything wrong.Okay.
Words have meanings. Who knew?Okay.
That is correct. It's not clear why though (other than the fact that Trump and his followers don't like immigrants).My understanding is that their "temporary" permission to be in the country was terminated. Now, they must go back to where they came from. Is this not correct?
Why, the “crime” of being born in the incorrect nations. Obviously.What crimes have the 500,000+ Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans whose legal status is being revoked committed?