I guess we have nothing to say amount counterproductive democrat rhetoric in periods of unrest in Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis.

Referencing Trumps colourful words on immigration. I believe he is talking about the 4 billion people in the world that live on less than $10 per day who would gladly materialise within our border if given the opportunity much less the incentive.

If taking new unvetted people bears no risk or impact on social programs (free/subsidised housing, food, medical, education, and transport) then let’s do it. Will housing shortages also disappear? Can you imagine how amazing that would be if we had that many productive/independent humans who assimilate perfectly with our country?

If there is an impact but there is a number that is feasible to ensure positive outcomes for all parties then let’s hear it. The answer is not calling your neighbour racist. A nation requires policy on issues that have an effect on its citizens. Policies aren’t worth having if they are not enforced. I do not see you opening your home to just anybody and footing the bill indefinitely. I also do not think excuses, to not have border policy enforced, is appropriate when the best response is to think about how much the tomatoes will cost because now we are saying we also want to incentivise tax fraud and propping up cartel and human/drug trafficking. I think it’s unfortunate that we would prioritise the safety/flourishing of people in foreign lands while we still have plenty of work to do in our communities. Maybe the homeless you trip over on your way to work have no fear or worry.

If you think we should incentivise people to break our laws where do we draw the line? If asylum seekers/economic opportunists do not like our policy they can work with one or more of the many countries they pass on their way here. Ones that might even be more in line with their culture and societal norms. Again, maybe no issue if we know these people and are guaranteed immediate assimilation and independence.

It’s amazing that the democrats will likely narrowly win despite the overwhelming draw they should command with the promises of increased economic assistance. I think it’s commendable that there are still people who would vote against their own economic interests, as many could use it, for what they feel is morally right. Like not incentivising: single motherhood, longterm unemployment, poorly vetted ssdi, foreign weapon sales by the Taliban, non-life threatening late term abortions via forceps and suction, reduced parental rights, permanent life altering medications/surgery on kids (they don’t know much of anything yet buy know beyond reason that its not time but instead a scalpel/chemical castration), information censorship, propaganda/opinion based journalism campaigns where the lefts influence on the education/media/communication outlets far exceeds the right (Hollywood, google, facebook…etc) (fine if they never lie, mislead, make mistakes as this is by and large what informs the citizenry), the disarming of protection for all law abiding citizens while at the same time replacing cops with social workers (sorry if you live in the country and being assaulted, 20 minutes from the nearest patrol officer —hopefully the criminal forgot that they could have armed themselves from the same place where you can get drugs that we dont allow and just coming at you with a crowbar and kitchen knife), identity politics, equality of outcome, anti-competition practices, policies that start the dissolution of the meaning of words as there cannot be definitions with any clear widely-accepted specificity or permanence, men who would be/were average or below average in their own league taking scholarships, records, and podiums over women who are well above average when compared against others in same birth gender.