For those advocating open immigration into the U.S., are you willing to house, feed, clothe, and otherwise support "refugees" yourself?

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:53:59 -0500

So you think President Trump is "evil" or "immoral" or what have you for limiting immigration from dangerous nations, and cracking down on illegal immigration into the U.S. OK. On the basis of your outrage and support for the wholesale opening of our borders, how much will you put your money where your mouth is?

Response by PO2 Robert M. made Feb 1 at 2017 1:04 PM

PO2 Robert M. — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:04:00 -0500

I do not think he is evil or immoral, but he should have thought of the repercussions and if this E.O. was in fact legal. Maybe your responses should not be so slanted to Republican leanings.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 1:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:12:40 -0500

What would Jesus do? What would the Buddha do? I suspect that most of us still understand that treating others the way you would want to be treated is the right thing to do. The real question is, who has the courage and integrity to walk the talk?

I want to be the person who is always willing to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, house the homeless... I'm not there yet.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 1:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:25:45 -0500

That's a meaningless false choice. Does every single American who thinks we should step up military actions against ISIS have to join the Army? Do those who favor extreme vetting have to be willing to go work for the State Department to conduct such vetting? Does everyone in favor of better border security have to go join the Border Patrol? Of course not. But it doesn't mean they don't support the government adopting those policies; and we all pay for the policies of our government through our taxes.

Response by MSgt Alvin A. made Feb 1 at 2017 1:38 PM

MSgt Alvin A. — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:38:21 -0500

Unless you grew up in a US/Mexico Border town you have no say on the Immigration matter; you just don't! You haven't seen what happens...

Increased crime... the rapes, the murders, the constant theft of anything not locked down behind a wall, or welded down. If you have something nice... drive it in the community, and ultimately that nice thing will no longer be nice once you park it... and it can be stolen as quickly as half an hour after you purchase it.

It is not a Racial issue for me... I have Hispanic Arnold's... I know... Shocking huh?!! Imagine that! Embraced as mean snot nose Arnold's. Now they are even meaner... well... they have it in them.

Mexico is a Dark place right now... the Government owned by the Drug Cartels is killing and murdering the members of the other Cartels it does not accept. To go down there would be a risk; a terrible risk that if the worst happened to you I couldn't write it here. I am a first born Son of a former US Border Patrol Commander of Yuma, Arizona... and they would love to roast me over a fire.

Response by SPC Casey Ashfield made Feb 1 at 2017 1:54 PM

SPC Casey Ashfield — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:54:08 -0500

Classic Democrat mindset from what I have seen. We somehow have all this room to support 5 million or so Syrian refugees. They just can't be anywhere close to the supporters of those who want them here. One absurd suggestion was to stick them on military bases. Yes thousands, if not millions of foreigners with poor vetting wandering around military posts. Just what we want.

Syrians should stay in their country. The Syrian region has always had an unstable government. Stay. Fight. Don't just run away like cowards.

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Feb 1 at 2017 5:13 PM

SFC Jim Ruether — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:13:54 -0500

If you look back in history “Teddy Roosevelt enforced the limiting immigration law during his presidency that prohibited immigration to the United States of anybody who believed in polygamy, promoted polygamy, or lived in a country that practiced polygamy. Who do you think he was trying to keep out of the country? It was Muslims and every darn one of them. There were no special situations or exclusions. He may have had some isolationist ideas but America was safe too!
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s website, the Immigration Act of 1891 barred “the immigration of polygamists, persons convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, and those suffering loathsome or contagious diseases.”

President Carter did the same with the Iranians during the U.S. Hostage crisis and deported thousands of Iranian students and other visa holders. Where was the uproar then? Have the Democrats conveniently forgotten their recent history? This didn't happen that long ago.

If Germany, Sweden, France and Great Britain had exercised the same precautions would they have had shootings in their country? Would they now be complaining about social programs expanding to the point of breaking them financially? Would they now have "Do Not Enter" areas in their cities where it's dangerous for Law Enforcement and Fire Protection to enter? If we had limited the immigration of Muslims and had a vetting program in place would we have had the shootings in San Bernadino, CA. Orlando, FL. or Ft. Hood, TX.? Would we have had aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania countryside?

We as Americans need to start thinking about our own rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. This phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect. This doesn't mean that we have to provide these same rights to foreign immigrants unless we know for sure that they intend to live here, work here and assimilate to our way of life and thinking and do us no harm.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Feb 1 at 2017 6:15 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 18:15:13 -0500

A country that does not control its borders will not continue to be a country. If we have wide open borders and simply allow anyone who wants to come here to just come on in and grant them all of the benefits of our citizens citizenship becomes worthless and we will be invaded and taken over by people who hate our way of life as is happening now in Europe and some places here. If that is what we choose to do a very good way to support them would be to abolish the military and use that money. If we have no borders and are not going to resist being colonized the military is a total waste of money as is the Border Patron, ICE and Homeland Security and that money will be needed to support the people who hate us, have no intention of accepting our laws and customs and simply demand more and more. We are well on the way to ceasing to be a nation.

Response by SFC George Smith made Feb 1 at 2017 11:12 PM

SFC George Smith — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 23:12:46 -0500

I can Hardly take care Of Myself... why would i want to support someone who steels into the country like a thief in the night or some one who will eventually try to kill me because his religion says he has to...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2017 7:08 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 19:08:28 -0500

So for those "opposed to legal abortions", are you willing to cloth, feed and house unwanted children?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2017 2:55 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:55:00 -0500

There's a lot of distortion on both sides about what has been said and what it means. I'm troubled by the President's order, but I don't want "the wholesale opening of our boarders", as you put it. To automatically link the two is a mistake. So is the suggestion that supporting or opposing anything means you have to have to have it in your home, or single-handedly support it, before your opinion means anything. Anybody can play that game. "So if you're in favor of nuclear power, are you willing to let the waste containers in your home?" See? It's an aggressive, black or white way of framing an issue that is solidly gray, has an ocean of nuance, and genuine reasons for concern on both sides.