Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

With Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh, they have to realize it cuts both ways. Do white Afrikaners qualify to be here as refugees? Sure. But so do plenty of dark skinned Venezuelans.

If you're against neither, I get it. If you're against both, I get it. But what I don't get is anyone picking one group and not the other.

---

There it is folks!

The patented Leftist equivocating!

"I'm poor and want to be less poor" is the same as "I am actively being persecuted by my government for my race" and both make you a refugee

---

Venezuelans are just poor. They're escaping violence (including threat of death), the same as South Africans.

---

It's not violence from their government directed at them because of their race and religion

The UN has held time and again that "I'm poor and there's violent crime here the government doesn't do anything to stop!" does not make you a refugee. If it did Chicagoan's could flee to Canada

---

I thought we wanted people from **** hole countries to stay there and fix their problems. Why is this different?

---

We want people from crap hole countries to stay and fix the economic problems in their country. They don't qualify for asylum simply because they live in a poor country.

If they are 7% of the population and the government is systematically killing them because of the color of their skin, they qualify for asylum. That's not an economic issue.

But I don't expect liberals to understand the difference.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

With Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh, they have to realize it cuts both ways. Do white Afrikaners qualify to be here as refugees? Sure. But so do plenty of dark skinned Venezuelans.

If you're against neither, I get it. If you're against both, I get it. But what I don't get is anyone picking one group and not the other.

---

There it is folks!

The patented Leftist equivocating!

"I'm poor and want to be less poor" is the same as "I am actively being persecuted by my government for my race" and both make you a refugee

---

Venezuelans are just poor. They're escaping violence (including threat of death), the same as South Africans.

---

It's not violence from their government directed at them because of their race and religion

The UN has held time and again that "I'm poor and there's violent crime here the government doesn't do anything to stop!" does not make you a refugee. If it did Chicagoan's could flee to Canada

---

I thought we wanted people from **** hole countries to stay there and fix their problems. Why is this different?

---

Now I remember why I had you on ignore. Your obtuse schtick is obnoxious.

Again, it's funny how nuanced people get when it's their argument.

Bless your pitiful heart if you think I'm a liberal.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

With Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh, they have to realize it cuts both ways. Do white Afrikaners qualify to be here as refugees? Sure. But so do plenty of dark skinned Venezuelans.

If you're against neither, I get it. If you're against both, I get it. But what I don't get is anyone picking one group and not the other.

---

There it is folks!

The patented Leftist equivocating!

"I'm poor and want to be less poor" is the same as "I am actively being persecuted by my government for my race" and both make you a refugee

---

Venezuelans are just poor. They're escaping violence (including threat of death), the same as South Africans.

---

It's not violence from their government directed at them because of their race and religion

The UN has held time and again that "I'm poor and there's violent crime here the government doesn't do anything to stop!" does not make you a refugee. If it did Chicagoan's could flee to Canada

---

I thought we wanted people from **** hole countries to stay there and fix their problems. Why is this different?

---

We want people from crap hole countries to stay and fix the economic problems in their country. They don't qualify for asylum simply because they live in a poor country.

If they are 7% of the population and the government is systematically killing them because of the color of their skin, they qualify for asylum. That's not an economic issue.

But I don't expect liberals to understand the difference.

---

Ethnic Cleansing. Obviously liberals think it only happens to POC.

It is a cultural thing. Are they crappy places because the local cultural practices make and keep them that way in a broad sense? Bringing that culture here is not beneficial for us and it is a poor match. It almost guarantees welfare dependency and social problems. If the government isn't persecuting the population that wants to migrate then it really is a matter of local reform and development and doesn't warrant asylum.

If there is a government or majority civil persecution of a population and they seek asylum from that persecution then at least there is a case to be made. If that group is also more culturally compatible with America and unlikely to be a welfare burden then even better. Inmigrants are technically not allowed to be a likely social or welfare burden by our own law but we've been systematically ignoring that for a while because one party here likes to exploit imported populations by keeping them dependent generationally if possible.

Episcopal Church Bishop Sean Rowe: It's against what we stand for to help white refugees fleeing South Africa pic.twitter.com/h4LEZaYQt6

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 14, 2025

Just lol, we can't help any white people because that's against our goals.

Also, this guy sounds gay.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Again, it's funny how nuanced people get when it's their argument.

---

By nuanced, you mean facts and the law? OK, yeah.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Again, it's funny how nuanced people get when it's their argument.

---

By nuanced, you mean facts and the law? OK, yeah.

---

Correct. More facts appeared to be used when we're talking about South Africans and less so when the "**** hole" conversations were had earlier.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Again, it's funny how nuanced people get when it's their argument.

---

By nuanced, you mean facts and the law? OK, yeah.

---

Correct. More facts appeared to be used when we're talking about South Africans and less so when the "**** hole" conversations were had earlier.

---

No. The same facts were being used back then as are being used right now.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It is a cultural thing. Are they crappy places because the local cultural practices make and keep them that way in a broad sense? Bringing that culture here is not beneficial for us and it is a poor match. It almost guarantees welfare dependency and social problems. If the government isn't persecuting the population that wants to migrate then it really is a matter of local reform and development and doesn't warrant asylum.

If there is a government or majority civil persecution of a population and they seek asylum from that persecution then at least there is a case to be made. If that group is also more culturally compatible with America and unlikely to be a welfare burden then even better. Inmigrants are technically not allowed to be a likely social or welfare burden by our own law but we've been systematically ignoring that for a while because one party here likes to exploit imported populations by keeping them dependent generationally if possible.

---

Would you say that the early Irish immigrants to this country were a match with the culture of the U.S. at the time?

For the record, let's allow the South Africans to come here if they can support themselves.

You are not being truthful.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Again, it's funny how nuanced people get when it's their argument.

---

By nuanced, you mean facts and the law? OK, yeah.

---

Correct. More facts appeared to be used when we're talking about South Africans and less so when the "**** hole" conversations were had earlier.

---

It is only a shlthole because of the blacks. It was fine prior to US and international involvement to end apartheid in 1994. It has now reverted back to a shlthole under black leadership. Just like every black lead nation on the planet.

Should we let black South African immigrate? Absolutely not. We would be lucky to get the white South Africans.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You are not being truthful.

---

Show me where I argued against asylum back then for a group of people in a country being killed because of the their race.

You libs argued the illegals were coming here for jobs. That's an economic issue! There is no asylum for that. I responded that they need to stay and fix their country. That fix is an economic issue.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It is a cultural thing. Are they crappy places because the local cultural practices make and keep them that way in a broad sense? Bringing that culture here is not beneficial for us and it is a poor match. It almost guarantees welfare dependency and social problems. If the government isn't persecuting the population that wants to migrate then it really is a matter of local reform and development and doesn't warrant asylum.

If there is a government or majority civil persecution of a population and they seek asylum from that persecution then at least there is a case to be made. If that group is also more culturally compatible with America and unlikely to be a welfare burden then even better. Inmigrants are technically not allowed to be a likely social or welfare burden by our own law but we've been systematically ignoring that for a while because one party here likes to exploit imported populations by keeping them dependent generationally if possible.

---

Would you say that the early Irish immigrants to this country were a match with the culture of the U.S. at the time?

For the record, let's allow the South Africans to come here if they can support themselves.

---

The early Irish were legal immigrants, many fleeing brutal conditions in Ireland (occupied).
The early Germans were legal immigrants, many fleeing war and persecutions.
The early ...
The key word is legal.

At the time, they were the among the least compatible of the groups coming in. Gaelic or heavily accented English and in large numbers and largely Catholic versus Protestant. When other groups came in that were even less culturally compatible then those groups became the focus of objection, Germans, Poles, Chinese, etc.

The least compatible group arriving in large numbers at a particular time will always draw the most objection.

The issue recently has been extremely large, as in historically unprecedented numbers large quantities and from very different cultures. Now, there is a sophisticated and lavish welfare state and a leftist political movement which encourages them to form enclaves and NOT assimilate when they arrive. That wasn't around when the Irish were coming in the mid 1800's.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It is a cultural thing. Are they crappy places because the local cultural practices make and keep them that way in a broad sense? Bringing that culture here is not beneficial for us and it is a poor match. It almost guarantees welfare dependency and social problems. If the government isn't persecuting the population that wants to migrate then it really is a matter of local reform and development and doesn't warrant asylum.

If there is a government or majority civil persecution of a population and they seek asylum from that persecution then at least there is a case to be made. If that group is also more culturally compatible with America and unlikely to be a welfare burden then even better. Inmigrants are technically not allowed to be a likely social or welfare burden by our own law but we've been systematically ignoring that for a while because one party here likes to exploit imported populations by keeping them dependent generationally if possible.

---

Would you say that the early Irish immigrants to this country were a match with the culture of the U.S. at the time?

For the record, let's allow the South Africans to come here if they can support themselves.

---

If you know your history you'd know that the highland Wales and Irish were looked down upon by most cultures. They settled in the south, unwelcome in the north. They are actually where the term "redneck" comes from.

What makes them different is that being criminals would have been deadly. If they couldn't pull their own weight there was no social welfare to keep them going.

Needing to survive their culture had to adapt. Which it largely did.

The USA of 2025 is not the USA of the past.

To quote L. P. Hartley, "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there."

Our welfare dependence is busting at the seams. As we have seen recently, even Democratic mayors of cities like NY and Denver now appreciate how unfettered immigration can burden their cities.

In my opinion, nobody should be allowed to enter this country unless they have proof they are going to be a net positive (economically, culturally, etc.) for us. And that should apply to everyone.

That's not true, but go off. There are several African countries that are improving. Sure, most I would not want to live in, but this rhetoric implies some dangerous ideology.

DANManman said:

---

That's not true, but go off. There are several African countries that are improving. Sure, most I would not want to live in, but this rhetoric implies some dangerous ideology.

---

There's a name for this ideology, but it can not be said here.

DANManman said:

---

That's not true, but go off. There are several African countries that are improving. Sure, most I would not want to live in, but this rhetoric implies some dangerous ideology.

---

No it doesn't. African nations are only where they are because of China and the West that maintain their infrastructure and build new things. They are incapable maintaining anything on their own.

Watch Empire of Dust



This is how every single African nation works. Without foreign oversight babysitting them in everything, absolutely nothing will happen. Why? Because the average IQ of these nations is below 75 and it's impossible to maintain a civilization when the average population is that dumb.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Again, it's funny how nuanced people get when it's their argument.

---

I would say it's funny how blatantly ignorant you are being when the differences have been explained to you multiple times over - but it's not funny. It's dumb and childish. Not surprising, but still dumb and childish the same.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You are not being truthful.

---

Show me where I argued against asylum back then for a group of people in a country being killed because of the their race.

You libs argued the illegals were coming here for jobs. That's an economic issue! There is no asylum for that. I responded that they need to stay and fix their country. That fix is an economic issue.

---

I never made a claim that you argued any such thing.

Also, I'm not a lib.

DANManman said:

---

That's not true, but go off. There are several African countries that are improving. Sure, most I would not want to live in, but this rhetoric implies some dangerous ideology.

---

It is absolute fact. Not one place except maybe Wakanda.

The facts don't lie.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

At the time, they were the among the least compatible of the groups coming in. Gaelic or heavily accented English and in large numbers and largely Catholic versus Protestant. When other groups came in that were even less culturally compatible then those groups became the focus of objection, Germans, Poles, Chinese, etc.

The least compatible group arriving in large numbers at a particular time will always draw the most objection.

The issue recently has been extremely large, as in historically unprecedented numbers large quantities and from very different cultures. Now, there is a sophisticated and lavish welfare state and a leftist political movement which encourages them to form enclaves and NOT assimilate when they arrive. That wasn't around when the Irish were coming in the mid 1800's.

---

I'd say the Japanese and Chinese had to bridge the largest gulf and have done so swimmingly. Maybe cultural differences have less to do with their success.

DANManman said:

---

That's not true, but go off. There are several African countries that are improving. Sure, most I would not want to live in, but this rhetoric implies some dangerous ideology.

---

Which ones? Genuinely curious.

rgvag11 said:

---

DANManman said:

---

That's not true, but go off. There are several African countries that are improving. Sure, most I would not want to live in, but this rhetoric implies some dangerous ideology.

---

There's a name for this ideology, but it can not be said here.

---

There is, it called reality.

Would it be nice and convenient if it was different? Absolutely, but it is not the case and will not ever be the case.

doubledog said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It is a cultural thing. Are they crappy places because the local cultural practices make and keep them that way in a broad sense? Bringing that culture here is not beneficial for us and it is a poor match. It almost guarantees welfare dependency and social problems. If the government isn't persecuting the population that wants to migrate then it really is a matter of local reform and development and doesn't warrant asylum.

If there is a government or majority civil persecution of a population and they seek asylum from that persecution then at least there is a case to be made. If that group is also more culturally compatible with America and unlikely to be a welfare burden then even better. Inmigrants are technically not allowed to be a likely social or welfare burden by our own law but we've been systematically ignoring that for a while because one party here likes to exploit imported populations by keeping them dependent generationally if possible.

---

Would you say that the early Irish immigrants to this country were a match with the culture of the U.S. at the time?

For the record, let's allow the South Africans to come here if they can support themselves.

---

The early Irish were legal immigrants, many fleeing brutal conditions in Ireland (occupied).
The early Germans were legal immigrants, many fleeing war and persecutions.
The early ...
The key word is legal.

---

That is an apples-to-grenades comparison. The system now is significantly more convoluted than it was during those immigrations, except if you are Chinese.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

At the time, they were the among the least compatible of the groups coming in. Gaelic or heavily accented English and in large numbers and largely Catholic versus Protestant. When other groups came in that were even less culturally compatible then those groups became the focus of objection, Germans, Poles, Chinese, etc.

The least compatible group arriving in large numbers at a particular time will always draw the most objection.

The issue recently has been extremely large, as in historically unprecedented numbers large quantities and from very different cultures. Now, there is a sophisticated and lavish welfare state and a leftist political movement which encourages them to form enclaves and NOT assimilate when they arrive. That wasn't around when the Irish were coming in the mid 1800's.

---

I'd say the Japanese and Chinese had to bridge the largest gulf and have done so swimmingly. Maybe cultural differences have less to do with their success.

---

Having a similar culture certainly helps, but because those two particular cultures prioritize hard work and education it works for them.

What cannot be overcome in a modern nation with an information economy is a low population IQ.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

At the time, they were the among the least compatible of the groups coming in. Gaelic or heavily accented English and in large numbers and largely Catholic versus Protestant. When other groups came in that were even less culturally compatible then those groups became the focus of objection, Germans, Poles, Chinese, etc.

The least compatible group arriving in large numbers at a particular time will always draw the most objection.

The issue recently has been extremely large, as in historically unprecedented numbers large quantities and from very different cultures. Now, there is a sophisticated and lavish welfare state and a leftist political movement which encourages them to form enclaves and NOT assimilate when they arrive. That wasn't around when the Irish were coming in the mid 1800's.

---

I'd say the Japanese and Chinese had to bridge the largest gulf and have done so swimmingly. Maybe cultural differences have less to do with their success.

---

I would not say that work ethic and being self sufficient are differences in culture. That is what most people think immigrants to this country should have.

Big difference between your 1800's immigration and today that is almost never reflected or shown is that, back then, the US sent a metric crap ton of people back to their countries because they were not seen fit to become Americans. Whether that was because of disease, education or known criminal history, etc.

It was also easy to send immigrants west to unsettled lands where they had no choice but to find a way, or die. The US didn't care about immigrants one bit - what the government wanted was lands settled and indians subjugated. Both established control over the lands and immigrants at the time provided economic boons to areas that had zero economy.

I was just pointing out the least culturally compatible groups over time in the late 1800's, not commenting on their subsequent success or failure. Those groups in their turn were least favorably viewed AT THE TIME but in moderate numbers and with the absolute necessity to sufficiently assimilate and be self reliant, they succeeded.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

And they wonder why we’re deporting them… pic.twitter.com/blk9XlyFHv

— David Santa Carla 🦇 (@TheOnlyDSC) May 13, 2025

---

Of course the little girl on the right is smiling and holding a flag. It was probably handed to her by the Deputy Secretary of State for a photo op when she landed in her chartered jet that we paid for.

In case you're curious (though probably not), chartered jets and greetings from high ranking government officials is somewhere between rare and never happened before for refugees.

---

This doesn't count?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You are not being truthful.

---

Show me where I argued against asylum back then for a group of people in a country being killed because of the their race.

You libs argued the illegals were coming here for jobs. That's an economic issue! There is no asylum for that. I responded that they need to stay and fix their country. That fix is an economic issue.

---

I never made a claim that you argued any such thing.

Also, I'm not a lib.

---

What am I not being truthful about? Your slithering doesn't win arguments.

Liberals never claim to be liberals. They all claim to be moderates! LOL

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You are not being truthful.

---

Show me where I argued against asylum back then for a group of people in a country being killed because of the their race.

You libs argued the illegals were coming here for jobs. That's an economic issue! There is no asylum for that. I responded that they need to stay and fix their country. That fix is an economic issue.

---

I never made a claim that you argued any such thing.

Also, I'm not a lib.

---

What am I not being truthful about? Your slithering doesn't win arguments.

Liberals never claim to be liberals. They all claim to be moderates! LOL

---

I'm a conservative that voted for Trump, so maybe that makes me a moderate?

The Episcopal Church is heretical trash. They were created so a king could get an unbiblical divorce. They have always prioritized the sinful impulses of man over the word of God.