PatriotReactor on Nostr: People who illegally cross into this country, and without being vetted and permitted ...

People who illegally cross into this country, and without being vetted and permitted by the prevailing immigration system, are NOT "immigrants". And yet the left gets away with this rhetoric a lot when discussing immigration POLICY with the right. They even go so far as to compare settlers to immigrants, even though such an immigration system never existed in the distant past during the founding of this country. It is deceptive and designed to get listeners to overlook the facts, some of which I'm about to describe below.

Furthermore, the term "invaders" is more than appropriate when describing these people because by and large, they not only commit more crime on average than both native and genuine immigrants BAR NONE (in fact, naturalized citizens are surprisingly law abiding, even when compared to native counterparts, probably due to the vetting process itself, but I digress), but their utter refusal to be vetted (which includes checking for warrants for their arrest in other countries) belies their intent to commit more crime on its face. They not only skip the process and pass through the fence illegally, but they overwhelmingly skip the scheduled asylum hearings when "caught and released". The fact that most of their crimes are petty is immaterial; they have INVADED, and even avoid vetting even when caught, and then commit more crimes ON OUR SOIL. That is, by deinition, an INVASION. And them INVADERS. They may not be stereotypical barbarian hoards, but even groups of low level thieves ransacking a border town in medieval times have been called such. Pick up a History book.

Yes, immigration as a system is tedious, and we can argue on how to expedite that system for prospective immigrants without sacrificing the vetting process. But as tedious as it may be, guess what; very rarely are the capped quotas for residencies ever met by any country, at least according to available State Dept records. In other words, we have such a lenient immigration system that even with taxpayer support for the immigrants via vouchers, grants, housing, etc, very rarely do the embassies deny applications due to sheer volume of applicants. The opportunity to be vetted and enter IS THERE yet rarely exhausted, and suspiciously omitted by the left.

So riddle me this: since the federal government has a monopoly on SECURITY at the border, and your taxes pay for this: do you prefer that the feds use this monopoly wisely or poorly? Because if it's wisely, you need the immigration system to be enforced. Poorly? Well, that's exactly what an invader would say, isn't it.

If you don't want the feds to have this monopoly, preferring that someone else do it in their place, that's one thing and there's an argument for that (See TEXIT and secession). But this is the system we have NOW. With YOUR MONEY (or rather, mine and everyone else's if you happen to be a net tax-consumer). We pay for this for a reason and should expect PERFORMANCE. Otherwise, we should demand a REFUND. Either way, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the feds make this system work, or they give it up to someone else who will. Anything less would be an injustice.

And if no one wishes to make it work, then damn it; perhaps instead of talking about immigrants and invaders, we should be discussing settlers and colonizers in the newfound wild west.

Or would that be too "racist" ?