Connect with us

Immigration

Trump’s ‘tent cities’ for asylum seekers will trigger some, but it’s brilliant

Published

on

Hardcore leftists want the impossible. In their open borders utopia, they imagine people coming to America at will and being given all the benefits of citizens. They want these benefits paid for by the rich (since in their world, the wealthy must pay for everyone else to live well). They want the red carpet treatment for anyone seeking asylum; give them a nice suburban home while they wait for their documents to be expedited to them.

Mothers, children, criminals, terrorists… all are welcome in leftist utopia.

What they don’t want is for people crossing the border and seeking asylum to be relocated to tents, fed sufficiently, schooled, medically treated, and given complete safety and shelter until their applications are processed and a judge hears their case. That’s cruelty in the eyes of most leftists.

It’s exactly what President Trump has planned and it’s brilliant.

In an interview last night on Ingraham Angle, the President addressed the migrant caravan issue. He said the difference is that in the past when the national guard was used to help border patrol capture illegal immigrants, they would be caught and released. This time, the President intends to catch and not release.

But he didn’t stop there. Host Laura Ingraham asked about asylum seekers. President Trump said, “If they apply for asylum we’re going to hold them until such time that their trial takes place.”

Ingraham asked where they would be kept if not released. The President told her his plan to keep those seeking asylum in “tent cities” where they’ll be held until their asylum trial.

“We’re going to build tent cities,” the President answered. “We’re going to put tents up all over the place. We’re not going to build structures and spend all of this, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars. We’re going to have tents, they’re going to be very nice, and they’re going to wait. And if they don’t get asylum, they get out.”

Ingraham noted that 80% of asylum seekers get rejected.

This plan is very different from anything we’ve seen in the past. When people apply for asylum, they are normally processed and released while they await trial, which can take years. When their trial date comes up, many of them do not appear. That’s one of the loopholes that has allowed millions of illegal immigrants to get embedded in our country. According to President Trump, that won’t be the case for this migrant caravan.

He also mentioned a separate benefit to handling it all this way. Once word spreads that the asylum seekers weren’t processed and released while awaiting trial, fewer will attempt to take advantage of the loophole.

The President will take flack from the left for not treating these people with respect and he’ll probably take some flack from the right for being too soft on them, but this is the best plan anyone has had on the issue. It makes sense for protecting our borders as a sovereign nation while not abandoning the needs of those who are truly in danger of oppression, persecution, extreme poverty, or violence.

Closing the loophole many illegal immigrants attempt to use through asylum policies will drastically reduce attempts to circumvent our laws. If they truly need asylum, they’ll come. If they don’t there’s no longer a benefit to trying for it. Well done.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Democrats

Progressives’ contradictions make their immigration goals crystal clear

Published

on

Progressives contradictions make their immigration goals crystal clear

Progressives are pushing what seems to be contradictory narratives on the same subject. The “concentration camp” narrative and all associated stories about poor conditions at migrant centers across the southern border is designed to invoke hatred that can be directed at the President for forcing migrants to live in terrible conditions. The “not a dime” narrative says American taxpayers should not spend anything additional on improving border housing quality and quantity.

Today, many Wayfair employees are walking out in protest because the company is selling beds to a contractor that supplies migrant centers. That’s the contradictory narrative in action, complaining that the kids aren’t comfortable while staying at migrant centers, then boycotting companies supplying the means to make them more comfortable.

Conservatives on Twitter responded:

The reality is this: They want the migrant centers to be so packed, so uncomfortable, and so inhumane that the outcry from America is to just let them go. Here is their narrative in a nutshell:

Give them their asylum hearing papers and let them go. In fact, take them wherever they want to go in America. If they show up for their hearing, so be it. If not, great! They’re immigrants like everyone else now. Give them a driver’s license, social services, free school, free housing, free healthcare, free food, free clothes, and anything else they can’t afford. Soon, we’ll give them voting rights. Because by coming here, they’re now Americans and deserve all of the rights of American citizens… plus plus plus.

If all of this sounds ludicrous, it’s because it is. If it sounds reasonable, you’re a modern-day radical progressive, in which case I welcome you to this site and I hope you read it thoroughly every day until you abandon your destructive ideology.

There is no contradiction in what progressives are promoting. They want all migrants released to the interior without hesitation. No stop at a migrant center. Just give them their papers and allow them to go if they want. If they don’t want to go immediately, take care of them until they do. That’s the current goal for progressives on border security. They want no security at all.

It’s time to stop arguing against progressives using logic. They won’t see it. They set their mind on a goal and will then do anything to achieve that goal. It doesn’t truly matter to them if migrants die in the process. In fact, it makes their case faster; the more deaths that happen at the border or in migrant centers, the easier it becomes for them to push their narrative.

Progressives don’t want beds for the migrants. They don’t want them to be held at all. We need to stop scratching our heads at their apparent contradiction and understand what progressives really want.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Immigration

Mainstream media censors images of dead bodies when convenient

Published

on

Mainstream media censors images of dead bodies when convenient

It isn’t common for mainstream media to post images of dead bodies. It has been considered bad form to show images of human death for decades, but there are times when the media is willing to make an exception. If you see a dead body in a newspaper, on television, or on a mainstream media website, you can count on one certain attribute: It reflects a piece of narrative they’re trying to push.

An example of this was yesterday when nearly every major media outlet showed an image of two dead migrants, a father and his 23-month-old daughter. It was a heartbreaking image, and clearly politically charged. Independent journalist Andy Ngo asked a series of important questions regarding coverage of the image on Twitter:

His questions and brief observations say all we need to know. The reality of how journalistic standards are applied across the board depends solely on how invoking or breaking them will affect their agenda. This applies to both sides of the current ideological divide plaguing the media and the country as a whole, but anecdotal it seems the major right-leaning outlets like Fox News and WSJ tend to be more consistent with their reporting style.

This image is intended to invoke outrage over the Trump administration policies that supposedly caused these deaths. The odd thing is the Democrats are the ones whose policies have encouraged hundreds of thousands of migrants in recent months to pay outrageous sums to the cartels, make the dangerous journey to our southern border, sacrifice women and children to the sexual predators “guiding” them on their journey, and facing the dangers to their well-being they face along the way.

But the narrative says blame Trump, so that’s what they’re doing. It’s why they universally broke their own protocols to share a viral image of recently deceased migrants, including a toddler.

It may be too much to ask for consistency from mainstream media, but we should at least have our own understanding of their motives for doing the things they do. Hat tip to Andy Ngo for continued intrepid reporting.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Immigration

Census: Sanctuary cities are reaping what they sow

Published

on

Census Sanctuary Cities Are Reaping What They Sow

Whether or not the census should include a citizenship question is a debate currently raging in our country, but few are stopping to realize that the behavior of sanctuary cities has led to this near inevitable juncture.

All cursory arguments aside, the reality is that sanctuary cities are flipping the proverbial bird at federal law. By declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants they are in essence declaring that significant portions of their population are likely undocumented and illegal. The logical question that arises from such a situation is whether lawlessness should be allowed to impact the apportionment of political representation.

The emergence of the citizenship question, regardless of its merits or lack thereof, should not come as a shock to anyone who has engaged in the manufacture of a sanctuary city. Do those who have endeavored to thwart federal law really think that the rest of the country would turn a blind eye to the apportionment of increased representation in federal government specifically predicated on an increased illegal population?

If those who wish to remove the citizenship question from the census are truly serious about their aims, they should set their sights as equally upon sanctuary cities as they should the Trump administration. It is the gross negligence of those who have attempted to thwart federal immigration law that has led to the just question of legitimate apportionment of political representation. Sanctuary cities, whether purposefully or not, have impacted the scales of their population in an unlawful way and if the census includes a citizenship question, as a commensurate response to their actions, they only have themselves to blame.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending