Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They shouldn’t be involved in our affairs at all for Christ’s sake. What the hell kind of question is that? Protect us and develop infrastructure. I’ll take care of the rest. I don’t need a nanny.
Allowing foreigners to enter the US for asylum may not directly benefit individual US citizens. But it maintains the image and concept of America as a defender of democracy and human rights in the world. Giving foreign aid to combat poverty and disease in other countries may not benefit US citizens, but it shows us to be a nation of compassion and may help win allies. It's all about what kind of country we want to be.
There is actually no evidence that allowing asylum seekers into the United States or giving aid to foreign countries helps our country in any way.
If anything, it encourages foreign countries to keep wanting more from us and taking advantage of us. The United States is the golden goose and ATM machine for the entire world. That is all.
Arguably, these "anti-communist" conflicts weakened America's long-term position. A China that remained unopposed, and doctrinaire-communist, wouldn't be an economic colossus today. A Vietnam that peacefully transitioned to Communism and remained that way, would perhaps now resemble North Korea, rather than an emerging "tiger country". If the US stood by while the USSR overran Afghanistan, we'd likely have no Taliban and no Al Qaeda. And so forth. So, these wars ultimately hurt US power, prestige and economic vitality.
You finally said something I agree with. I think non-intervention is usually the best course for America. But since at least WWII the US has been involving itself in various places usually to our detriment.
I voted no—
Not all US citizens are better than citizens from other countries
Would you put Jeffrey Dahmer above Tasuko Honjo, a Japanese immunologist that won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on protein cell death 1–a factor in autoimmune diseases
I voted no—
Not all US citizens are better than citizens from other countries
Would you put Jeffrey Dahmer above Tasuko Honjo, a Japanese immunologist that won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on protein cell death 1–a factor in autoimmune diseases
Or the Beatles
Or Nelson Mandela
Those people you mentioned may, or may not be better than some us citizens. That is an entirely different debate. They are however, NOT US citizens so your point (?) is completely irrelevant
But of course a lefty never allows relevance, or comprehension of the subject at hand to deter them from any opportunity to bash their enemy number one.......common sense.
Why are you coming up with lame scenario's about criminals? We still have laws. Giving a criminal a pass would not be putting American's first.
Stop overthinking this - you're making it harder than it needs to be.
Putting Americans first means taking care of our citizens and pouring money into our Education system, infrastructure, jobs, veteran's, retirees, senior citizens, people who are struggling - instead of taking care of illegals and sending money off to other nations.
I voted no—
Not all US citizens are better than citizens from other countries
Would you put Jeffrey Dahmer above Tasuko Honjo, a Japanese immunologist that won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on protein cell death 1–a factor in autoimmune diseases
Or the Beatles
Or Nelson Mandela
You think we should take care of those people and ignore the needs of our own citizens?
Why are you coming up with lame scenario's about criminals? We still have laws. Giving a criminal a pass would not be putting American's first.
Stop overthinking this - you're making it harder than it needs to be.
Putting Americans first means taking care of our citizens and pouring money into our Education system, infrastructure, jobs, veteran's, retirees, senior citizens, people who are struggling - instead of taking care of illegals and sending money off to other nations.
There are clearly places where citizenship is not determinant. Read the 14th.
Second half of Section 1...
**********************************
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
***********************************
The first half of section 1 refers to citizens.. But the second half refers to persons. So sometimes we deal with the citizens and sometimes not.
I would think major policies should be based on doing best for the citizen collective. The systems however should show little preference in the ongoing decisions.
Jeffery Epstein was a US citizen that liked to prey on young girls. If he (and his buddy, the donald) were shown to molest underage non-US citizen girls on Jeffery's island, should the US put Jeffery and the donald first before the interests of the molested girls?
Wow, so much dumb in one post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
