Are Folks Making America Hate Again?

rjs330 · May 18, 2025

doubtingmerle said:
Sorry, no — DEI is not about division. It’s about giving people equal opportunity.

Do you, or do you not, agree with giving people equal opportunity? If you support that, then you support the core goal of DEI.

If, due to in-group bias, women and minorities are consistently denied equal opportunities, what could be wrong with programs that aim — as fairly as possible — to correct that?

DEI is not about dividing. By its very nature, it is about inclusion. Perhaps you should take time to learn what it’s really about.

What you have fallen for Merele, and I think its because you are a decent person, is an idea. The idea DEI is about equality. It sounds very nice. Who on earth would be against equality and inclusion? You said it yourself. What lofty goal we have. What a great ideal. Everyone want equality right? (Well, almost everyone). Everyone wants to be inclusive.

Except in practice DEI doesn't do any of that. It says thats what its for, but its not what it actually does. It actually divides people into categories then tells one category they are members of an oppressive group and tells rhe other groups they are members of the oppressed and then points fingers at the oppressors.

A study done by NCRI and Rutgers University examined whether or not DEI actually fostered inclusion or was more divisive.
Did it promote more empathy or create more hostility. The study showed that people exposed to DEI actually perceived prejudice where non existed and were willing to punish the perpetrators. "DEI narratives that focus heavily on victimization and systemic oppression can foster unwarranted distrust.

The researchers concluded from the three experiments that DEI materials can “engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment.”

DEI has a serious problem in that it operated within a system that assigned rigid roles. Whites are listed as unchanging people of white privilege and minorities and unchanging figures of the oppressed. It stuck people into categories of race without nuance. Little to no thought was given to much of anything else other than race being to driving factor of supposed inequality. By insisting on the racial bias component DEI can't help but be divisive.

Secondly there is the problem of determining what exactly the outcomes should look like. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion are all words without definable outcomes. They are hypothetical constructs. How does one know if a company is not equitable? Is it simply based on population statistics? Let's say, blacks make up 12% of the population. Should blacks then make up 12% of the business or management? How do you determine whether or not its equitable? Race? Well we are back to putting one race against other. The reason there aren't more blacks in management of a business is because the white people unconsciously want it that way. It has nothing to do with anything else. Its tribal you say. What's the measurement? There is no evidence based determination of equality except on racial terms. Which again is divisive.

MrMoe · May 19, 2025

doubtingmerle said:
Ah, but it is different when I do it.

Let me explain with an illustration. Years ago, I was in a business meeting where we were discussing a new problem that had come up. People were throwing out solutions, but no one seemed to be listening to each other, and no one was getting the big picture. So I stepped in with something I thought might help. I began to say, "We need to solve this, and we can do it with solution A, or solution B, or solution C."

Unfortunately, I never got to finish that sentence. I had barely said, "We can do it with solution A..." when my boss’s boss cut in rather firmly: "The problem with you, Merle, is that you see only one solution when there are other ways."

I was shocked. I was the new kid in town, and this man had power. So I said nothing. But I’ve always remembered how unfair and rude it was to cut me off mid-sentence and pretend that the snippet he heard represented my whole message.

Since then, I’ve seen that same technique used many times. I’ll be speaking, and someone interrupts to tell me I didn’t account for X—when in reality, I was just about to get to X before being rudely cut off. I’m no longer as patient when that happens. People who take snippets out of context and ignore what follows aren't listening well, and they hinder communication. Let people finish. Then respond to what they’re actually trying to say.

I had jumped into your discussion with another person because I saw the same pattern. It seemed like you were breaking things into soundbites and ignoring the fact that the very next phrase addressed your concern.

I’m not claiming my responses are perfect. But I do try to consider the whole of what someone is saying. When I condense things into soundbites to streamline the message, it doesn’t mean I’m ignoring everything else.

The problem is that your in person business meeting experience doesn’t really translate to online discussions. You can’t really interrupt people in a forum. You can take your time to reply, and since it’s written down, you can always point back to what you or others said.

MrMoe · May 19, 2025

Your first link is behind a paywall, but your second link is exactly what I was talking about. It says:

Strange, I have no subscription to this site and I don’t get a paywall.

Here’s what the article says:

There is a very real human cost to open borders: modern-day slavery.
Right now, our southern border is the least secure in history, and Mexican drug cartels are making a killing by taking advantage of migrants on the journey to our country.

Sadly, migrant women and children are often raped, robbed, and forced to smuggle drugs, and those who cannot pay their fee, or “piso,” for passage to the U.S. are trapped in indentured servitude in fear for their own lives or their families.

More than 6 million illegal aliens have crossed our border in the last 27 months. This is human suffering on a massive scale.
This would not be happening if not for the Biden administration’s unlawful open border policies, which continue to encourage millions more migrants to subject themselves to exploitation and make it easier for cartels to generate billions of dollars in smuggling fees.
That said, the physical, emotional and sexual abuse on the journey north is just half of the harrowing reality. The other half is the largely overlooked story of countless migrant children suffering on this side of the border in our own communities.

In February, The New York Times released a bombshell investigation, “Alone and Exploited, Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs Across the U.S.” It shed light on the lives of migrant children once they reach the border and are released into American communities.

Unbeknownst to many Americans, factories and other job sites around the country are packed with underage migrant children unlawfully working with dangerous machinery for long hours.
Children as young as 12 work as day laborers and in construction. They skip school, lose sleep, and have no families to go home to. In the words of the reporter Hannah Dreier, “This shadow work force extends across industries in every state, flouting child labor laws that have been in place for nearly a century.”

In the past 27 months alone, more than 370,000 children have come to our southern border unlawfully without any parents. In the investigation, a reported two-thirds of these children work in these illegal jobs that carry a high risk of injury or death.
Anyone in their right mind would wonder: How does this happen? As The New York Times’ investigation details, children are released to unvetted “sponsors” who sometimes turn out to be abusive slavers who force them to work to pay off the smuggling debts.

Others are pressured by their families to cross the border alone to work and send money home. They become trapped in indentured servitude when they cannot pay the passage fee to the cartels, and they must work to pay off debts as high as $20,000.
In each of these situations, the open border policies of the Biden administration have made it easier for these bad actors to enslave and harm children. Here’s how.

First, the administration loosened vetting standards for both sponsors and volunteers who take children into their custody when they arrive unlawfully. These sponsors do not even have to complete or pass a background check.
Caseworkers say they “rush through vetting sponsors” and described “many reports of trafficking,” but no consequences for the traffickers. One of the sponsors of a child featured in this investigation stole his paycheck from painting houses every day and watched him sleep on the floor.

Second, the Biden administrationhas ignored the widespread hiring of illegal immigrants and removed a record-low number of children arriving unaccompanied, which increases the incentive for families to send their children to work across the border illegally.
Third, the Biden administration has not cracked down on the cartels. The open border fuels the cartels’ activities, so the federal government must get smart about stopping them.

Reinstating nationwide “catch and release” has assured millions of migrants, especially children, that when they come to the border, they will be let into American communities with virtually no consequences. As a result, they make the journey north and suffer at the hands of the cartels.
Stopping this historical exploitation of children begins with securing the border and enforcing consequences for unlawful entry, which will give the cartels less business. We must also take on the cartels more directly by imposing harsher penalties on trafficking, smuggling, and other forms of exploitation.

Migrant children should be released only to sponsors who have been thoroughly vetted, and all volunteers working with them must be required to pass a background check. And labor enforcement must be prioritized so that children do not work in these underground, illegal and dangerous jobs.
At the end of the day, the Biden administration has sold a lie to the American people that their policies are compassionate and that we are helping migrants by leaving our borders open. Yet they are silent about the suffering of these vulnerable children and the cruelty of the cartels inflicting harm on all those who attempt to cross our borders.
Millions more will continue to suffer if the Biden administration does not correct course and return to policies that protect vulnerable children and defeat the cartels.

doubtingmerle said:
LOL! You responded to a link I gave you about the H-2A program exploiting people who are here legally by providing a link about the H-2A program exploiting people who are here legally! Thanks for the link. You just corroborated what I was saying.

H-2A is a legal temporary immigration program. It allows employers to bring in foreign workers to meet temporary labor shortages, like seasonal farm work when there’s not enough domestic labor available.

And yes, the H-2A program is filled with exploitation. Your link confirms that. I link to a video with more information on H-2A exploitation at: H-2A Program.

So, I find it a little odd that you tried to refute my statement—that the legal temporary immigration program, H-2A, treats people like slaves—by providing a link that documents exactly what I was saying!

You’ve misread my intention. I wasn’t trying to disprove your claim. I wanted to show that illegals immigrants were being exploited and treated like slaves too.

doubtingmerle said:
Is there slave labor among undocumented immigrants too? Probably yes. But from what I’m seeing, the slave-labor conditions within the H-2A program are even worse than those typically affecting undocumented workers.

From what you’re seeing? Is that data and statistics or just personal anecdotal evidence?

doubtingmerle said:
There are many ways undocumented immigrants could be allowed to stay here legally—either by becoming citizens or by staying as legal non-citizens. Deportation is not the only option.

I’m not seeing where the punishment for breaking the law is in those two options.

MrMoe · May 19, 2025

doubtingmerle said:
I should address this in more detail. My initial response was too flippant. These links are worth considering.

First, it is well known that there is a universal tendency toward in-group bias. That is, most of us naturally favor those we perceive to be part of our own group.

This can become problematic when a particular group holds significant power. That power, combined with in-group bias, can make it difficult for outsiders to advance. The result is a system that unintentionally discriminates against others.

When a group maintains power over a long period of time, society tends to evolve around the norms and perspectives of that group. In such cases, discrimination can become embedded in institutions—even if no one intends it consciously.

This type of built-in, systemic disadvantage is often referred to as systemic racism. In the United States, since white men have historically held much of the power, the norms and institutions they shaped have led to systemic disadvantages for women and minorities.

That’s what the articles you linked to are addressing. White men, influenced by natural in-group bias, built and maintained systems that, intentionally or not, have made it more difficult for other groups to get ahead. Some people refer to this as systemic racism, and extend the term racist to anyone who is part of or benefits from this system.

Personally, I think that labeling everyone involved as “racist” is misleading. We—white men—are people with natural biases, living in a society that has discriminatory elements. While it's important to recognize and address the harm caused by systemic bias, I think we should be careful about applying such a loaded term too broadly.

Since there is a universal tendency toward in-group bias, does that mean every country with a racial majority has systemic racism? For example Japan, Germany, and South Africa.

MrMoe · May 19, 2025

BCP1928 said:
It depends on the authority they have to impose those rules. Christians have only that authority over their own members.

What about Christians in politics?

BNR32FAN · May 19, 2025

Bobber said:
Sadly I'm seeing that with Fox right now who I used think were credible. When they back Trumps assertions that U.S. importers DON'T pay the tarrifs and the American people don't either they're no better IMO then CNN and the left media were years back supporting the Dems. It seems like we're seeing a reversal somewhat....the Liberal media are correct to be challenging various of Trump's claims and Fox basically IMO just goes with the President's narrative with no questions.

Yeah neither side is credible anymore.

BCP1928 · May 19, 2025

MrMoe said:
Strange, I have no subscription to this site and I don’t get a paywall.

Here’s what the article says:

You’ve misread my intention. I wasn’t trying to disprove your claim. I wanted to show that illegals immigrants were being exploited and treated like slaves too.

Of course. Because they are illegal they cannot complain about wages or working conditions. That's why MAGA is ignoring them in a rush to deport legal aliens--asylum seekers, refugees, etc. They can work, too, but they are covered by US wage and working conditions laws and can complain about it.

MrMoe said:
From what you’re seeing? Is that data and statistics or just personal anecdotal evidence?

I’m not seeing where the punishment for breaking the law is in those two options.

What law was broken?

BCP1928 · May 19, 2025

MrMoe said:
Since there is a universal tendency toward in-group bias, does that mean every country with a racial majority has systemic racism? For example Japan, Germany, and South Africa.

Yes, and it has been studied in those countires.

rjs330 · May 19, 2025

MrMoe said:
What about Christians in politics?

Dont be silly Moe, everyone knows Christians are only people who shouldn't bring any belief systems into politics.

rjs330 · May 19, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Yes, and it has been studied in those countires.

Great, then you have no problems with bringing over white people from South Africa then.

rjs330 · May 19, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Of course. Because they are illegal they cannot complain about wages or working conditions. That's why MAGA is ignoring them in a rush to deport legal aliens--asylum seekers, refugees, etc.

Rhats about one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. I believe the vast majority of deportees are illegals.

BCP1928 · May 19, 2025

rjs330 said:
Rhats about one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. I believe the vast majority of deportees are illegals.

No doubt you will continue to believe it. I don't have to. But I wonder why there has been no uptick in workplace enforcement?

doubtingmerle · May 20, 2025

MrMoe said:
Strange, I have no subscription to this site and I don’t get a paywall.

I browse a lot of news sources based on links. If people read too many articles from certain sites, those people eventually get blocked unless they pay. Apparently, that’s what happened to me.

MrMoe said:
Here’s what the article says:

Your link is about people trying to come to America—most of whom are seeking asylum. But you yourself have said there’s nothing illegal about seeking asylum. So why are you condemning those who do?

Yes, there’s likely a great deal of exploitation among migrants trying to reach the U.S. But I’ve provided links documenting the desperate conditions many of these people are fleeing. For them, it’s a life-or-death decision. The journey may be perilous, but it offers them a chance at survival.

MrMoe said:
I’m not seeing where the punishment for breaking the law is in those two options.

Perhaps that’s because you’re not reading what I actually write?

I understand that some people are breaking the law by staying here undocumented. And I understand there may need to be some kind of consequence for that. But sending people back to countries where their lives are in danger is not a compassionate solution.

I don’t agree that if someone breaks a law, they must be punished no matter the circumstances. Laws typically define maximum penalties, but the justice system is built to assess context and apply leniency when appropriate.

So while we may be justified in enforcing some form of consequence for undocumented immigrants, many of us believe it's best—both for them and for us—to find a path that allows at least many to stay, under mutually beneficial terms.

Your messages consistently imply that breaking the law must be met with the harshest possible punishment. But why? Where is the mercy in that? Do you advocate the same for every single lawbreaker?

In Massachusetts, you can be fined up to $100 for dancing to the national anthem. Are you demanding we enforce that? If someone dances without being punished, does that, in your view, encourage people to commit murder, rape, and robbery without restraint?

In Oklahoma, it is illegal to make an ugly face at a dog. In California, it is illegal to ride a bike in a swimming pool. In Alabama, you can be jailed—or sentenced to hard labor—for playing cards on a Sunday.

Is it OK to ignore these laws since they’ve long been violated and no one cares?

Likewise, if the employment of undocumented workers has gone on for years—and if we even have labor laws that specifically protect undocumented workers—then why must we now pivot to punishing them to the full extent of the law?

MrMoe said:
Like I said before, nothing illegal about seeking asylum. So I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

I bring it up because you’ve posted links portraying the horrors of people seeking asylum. Are you now saying you're OK with that? Should we disregard your links?

MrMoe said:
Illegal immigrants still need to be punished for committing a crime. Rewarding them sends the wrong message.

And if we "reward" those who dance during the national anthem, make ugly faces at dogs, or play cards on Sundays, are we sending the wrong message too?

MrMoe said:
They can be compassionately deported to other countries.

Ah, so you're OK with people fleeing to another country if their lives are in danger—just not this one? Why not here?

BCP1928 · May 20, 2025

MrMoe said:
What about Christians in politics?

They get one vote each, just like everybody else but not a pass on the Bill of Rights.

BCP1928 · May 20, 2025

MrMoe said:
Illegal immigrants still need to be punished for committing a crime. Rewarding them sends the wrong message. They can be compassionately deported to other countries.

What crime would you suggest?

essentialsaltes · May 30, 2025

stevil said:
Both major parties in the USA have deported illegal immigrants and turned people away at the border. This is totally fine.
But then it gets problematic when some prominent people (including the current president) say racist things.
[Trump examples]
This is straight up, NAZI level xenophobic racism.

Then you have Fox news hosts talking about the Great Replacement theory,

According to a post about the summit on the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism’s website, “Remigration is rooted in the thoroughly de-bunked white supremacist ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory, which purports a planned ‘replacement’ of white people by politicians and other ‘elites.’ Jews are often targeted as driving this ‘plan.’”

They continued: “Remigration is a series of policy proposals, drafted by Austrian Identitarian and former neo-Nazi Martin Sellner, to end the so-called ‘replacement’ by purging the continent of non-white people and eliminating all forms of multiculturalism. The goal is to make countries ‘European again.’”

US State Department set to launch Office of Remigration

... which will “provide a policy platform for interagency coordination with DHS and other agencies on removals/repatriations, and for intra-agency policy work to advance the President’s immigration agenda.” There will also be offices of International Migration/Repatriation and Refugee Processing.

doubtingmerle · Jun 5, 2025

rjs330 said:
What you have fallen for Merele, and I think its because you are a decent person, is an idea. The idea DEI is about equality. It sounds very nice. Who on earth would be against equality and inclusion? You said it yourself. What lofty goal we have. What a great ideal. Everyone want equality right? (Well, almost everyone). Everyone wants to be inclusive.

I disagree. DEI is about equality. You have done nothing to show otherwise.

I have previously shown that ingroup bias happens repeatedly. When one group is dominant and has natural ingroup biases, that gives an advantage to those in that group and makes it harder for others to get ahead. DEI is about recognizing that this happens and attempting to do something about it.

You are in favor of equality, yes?

And do you agree that ingroup bias can be a problem when dominant groups tend to hire from their own group—e.g., white men hiring white men?

Do you agree that, if this is happening, it might be helpful to have programs to encourage diversity?

If your answer to all three questions is yes, then you, rjs330, also favor some sort of DEI.

rjs330 said:
Except in practice DEI doesn't do any of that. It says thats what its for, but its not what it actually does. It actually divides people into categories then tells one category they are members of an oppressive group and tells rhe other groups they are members of the oppressed and then points fingers at the oppressors.

How do you know that DEI does this? My experience is that DEI is interested in helping people understand ingroup bias and how to compensate for it.

Yes, there may be times when DEI goes beyond its intention and labels white people as inherently more oppressive than others. That is wrong. But that in no way nullifies the basic problem: all groups tend to have ingroup biases, and this hurts inclusion.

rjs330 said:
A study done by NCRI and Rutgers University examined whether or not DEI actually fostered inclusion or was more divisive.
Did it promote more empathy or create more hostility. The study showed that people exposed to DEI actually perceived prejudice where non existed and were willing to punish the perpetrators. "DEI narratives that focus heavily on victimization and systemic oppression can foster unwarranted distrust.

That study, titled "Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias", by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University, has sparked significant debate. Many have raised concerns about its methodology and conclusions.

Actually, what it showed was that certain students who volunteered for a psychology experiment, when asked to read extreme DEI literature, had a slightly higher tendency on average to see racism compared to students who had not read that literature. Were these students merely answering questions as they thought the researchers wanted? Were there a few subjects who were persuaded to an extreme, thus throwing off the average, while most students changed little? Would it have been different if they had been exposed to typical DEI training instead of extreme writings? See: The Study on How DEI Causes Hostile Attribution Bias

I won't deny that DEI training can go to extremes. How much education about bias is enough to overcome natural bias? Obviously, if that is emphasized too much, it could lead to an opposite extreme reaction.

rjs330 said:
The researchers concluded from the three experiments that DEI materials can “engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment.”

Concluding that some DEI materials can engender hostile attribution bias is not the same thing as proving that all DEI material actually does.

rjs330 said:
Secondly there is the problem of determining what exactly the outcomes should look like. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion are all words without definable outcomes. They are hypothetical constructs. How does one know if a company is not equitable? Is it simply based on population statistics? Let's say, blacks make up 12% of the population. Should blacks then make up 12% of the business or management? How do you determine whether or not its equitable? Race? Well we are back to putting one race against other. The reason there aren't more blacks in management of a business is because the white people unconsciously want it that way. It has nothing to do with anything else. Its tribal you say. What's the measurement? There is no evidence based determination of equality except on racial terms. Which again is divisive.

Understood. How much DEI emphasis is enough? How much is too much and actually results in reverse bias? There is no easy answer to that. But not having a simple way to accurately measure the result does not mean we should stop trying.

MrMoe · Jun 6, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Of course. Because they are illegal they cannot complain about wages or working conditions. That's why MAGA is ignoring them in a rush to deport legal aliens--asylum seekers, refugees, etc. They can work, too, but they are covered by US wage and working conditions laws and can complain about it.

Trump is ignoring illegals in a rush to deport legal aliens? Got any proof to back up that claim?

BCP1928 said:
What law was broken?

Crossing the border illegally.

MrMoe · Jun 6, 2025

doubtingmerle said:
Your link is about people trying to come to America—most of whom are seeking asylum. But you yourself have said there’s nothing illegal about seeking asylum. So why are you condemning those who do?

When did I condemn asylum seeking?

doubtingmerle said:
Yes, there’s likely a great deal of exploitation among migrants trying to reach the U.S. But I’ve provided links documenting the desperate conditions many of these people are fleeing. For them, it’s a life-or-death decision. The journey may be perilous, but it offers them a chance at survival.

Only a fraction are actually fleeing for the lives. According to Chatgpt it estimates only about 10-20% of all immigrants are fleeing persecution.

So it would actually be safer for the majority to stay in their countries or cross legally than risk their lives crossing illegally.

doubtingmerle said:
Perhaps that’s because you’re not reading what I actually write?

I understand that some people are breaking the law by staying here undocumented. And I understand there may need to be some kind of consequence for that. But sending people back to countries where their lives are in danger is not a compassionate solution.

You got some evidence of people being sent back to countries where their lives are in danger?

doubtingmerle said:
I don’t agree that if someone breaks a law, they must be punished no matter the circumstances. Laws typically define maximum penalties, but the justice system is built to assess context and apply leniency when appropriate.

So while we may be justified in enforcing some form of consequence for undocumented immigrants, many of us believe it's best—both for them and for us—to find a path that allows at least many to stay, under mutually beneficial terms.

This is very selfish. Basically you want them to stay because of what America gets out of it.

doubtingmerle said:
Your messages consistently imply that breaking the law must be met with the harshest possible punishment. But why? Where is the mercy in that? Do you advocate the same for every single lawbreaker?

Harshest possible punishment? When did I imply that? The harshest possible punishment I can think of is execution, and I’ve never suggested that.

On the contrary, I said that they should be deported out of America to countries that will accept them, because according to Democrats, America is a systemically racist, white supremacist country led by a corrupt, Hitler loving, wannabe dictator. That is mercy.

doubtingmerle said:
In Massachusetts, you can be fined up to $100 for dancing to the national anthem. Are you demanding we enforce that? If someone dances without being punished, does that, in your view, encourage people to commit murder, rape, and robbery without restraint?

In Oklahoma, it is illegal to make an ugly face at a dog. In California, it is illegal to ride a bike in a swimming pool. In Alabama, you can be jailed—or sentenced to hard labor—for playing cards on a Sunday.

Is it OK to ignore these laws since they’ve long been violated and no one cares?

Likewise, if the employment of undocumented workers has gone on for years—and if we even have labor laws that specifically protect undocumented workers—then why must we now pivot to punishing them to the full extent of the law?

There is no evidence the making an ugly face at a dog law exists, and is most likely a myth or misinterpretation. The riding a bike in a pool law is unconfirmed, and the dancing one is real but no longer enforced.

Do those laws being unenforced, in my view, encourage people to commit murder, rape, and robbery without restraint? No. I don’t see why they would.
Illegal immigration on the other hand has allowed a lot of bad people to enter and they have taken the lives of innocent Americans.

doubtingmerle said:
I bring it up because you’ve posted links portraying the horrors of people seeking asylum. Are you now saying you're OK with that? Should we disregard your links?

You were the first to bring up the topic. No I’m not okay with asylum seekers being treated like slaves. Are you okay with illegal immigrants being treated like slaves?

doubtingmerle said:
And if we "reward" those who dance during the national anthem, make ugly faces at dogs, or play cards on Sundays, are we sending the wrong message too?

One law is likely not a real law, one is unconfirmed and one hasn’t been enforced in decades and most people are probably not aware of. Being soft on illegal immigration on the other hand sends the wrong message that they can enter without consequences.

doubtingmerle said:
Ah, so you're OK with people fleeing to another country if their lives are in danger—just not this one? Why not here?

Because America is a systemically racist, white supremacist country led by a corrupt, Hitler loving, wannabe dictator. So the left says.

MrMoe · Jun 6, 2025

BCP1928 said:
They get one vote each, just like everybody else but not a pass on the Bill of Rights.

What if they are the majority vote?

Are Folks Making America Hate Again?

Well-Known Member

Part-Time Breatharian

Part-Time Breatharian

​

Part-Time Breatharian

Part-Time Breatharian

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

US State Department set to launch Office of Remigration​

I'll think about it.

Part-Time Breatharian

Part-Time Breatharian

Part-Time Breatharian

Similar threads

US State Department set to launch Office of Remigration