General Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

Would Rick Santorum be in favor of undocumented aliens carrying guns?

Asked by elbanditoroso (25988points) 1 week ago

Apparently Rich Santorum’s view is that people in the WalMart massacre were soft targets, and that, had they been carrying guns, they wouldn’t have been such good targets because they would have shot back.

link

Apart from the obvious stupidity of the remark (as we heard yesterday, the gun-carrying Texans turned tail and rabbited out of the area), one wonders if Santorum would be in favor of undocumented aliens carrying firearms to protect themselves?

If not, why not? Or does he feel that only white citizens can engage in self defense?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

87 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

There have been instances already, where the “good guy with a gun” (black, ‘coincidentally’), was gunned down by the cops when they showed up.
Apart from the obvious fact that the arriving coppers will not know, which of the currently lead spewing people are “the good guys”, thus will assume that they are all the aggressors, the fact that the “good guys with guns” would be non-white, they would then prejudicially assume that the non-whites are ‘obviously’ the bad guys, and that it is the white guy who is the “good guy”.
And then you can rest assured, that the right wing media and the right wing politicians, will immediately disseminate the narrative, that the non-whites were the mass shooters, using it to further their white supremacist agenda.
And when it inevitably is revealed that they are, as usual, full of shit, the propaganda damage will have already been done.

JLeslie's avatar

Gun laws always are hard for me to comment on. I basically agree with everything @ragingloli said above, but then I think about wanting to be able to shoot the Nazi soldiers and I am conflicted. There are stories of Jews being kept safe by communities who twisted Nazi soldiers, and the soldiers just chose to ignore some small neighborhoods. I don’t remember what country it was in I’d have to google for the stories. The neighbors came out with guns, but the soldiers were not in large numbers. If I was going to die I’d want to take my attacker with me to his death or at minimum lame him substantially.

People compare Trump to Hitler, do we want to be defenseless? I’m not arguing for guns, I’m just saying I do have more than one thought on the topic of guns, and the thought sometimes conflict with each other.

There are many more legal immigrants in America than immigrants without papers. I don’t like to feed into the idea that every Latin American in Texas is an illegal immigrant, the fact is Texas was Mexico before it was Texas. The Mexicans were there first, and when we drew the border America decided to make the people living on our new land part of America. This idea that Mexicans in Texas are foreigners is crazy talk for the majority of Hispanic Americans in the state.

gorillapaws's avatar

@JLeslie The hypothetical scenario where widespread firearms in the civilian population is useful in preventing a second holocaust, makes no sense. For one thing, in order to defend yourself sufficiently from the threat of a tyrannical military, you’d need access to weapons such as anti aircraft missiles. Military technology has come a long way in the past 75–80 years. It would be hard to hold off modern soldiers without serious weapons. You and I both know that’s probably not a good idea to allow civilians to have.

MrGrimm888's avatar

In my state, to purchase a gun, you have to fill out a form called a 4473. The form asks multiple times, about if you are Latino. I can’t say what weight those answers carry, in NICS deciding on if a Latino can buy a gun. But I had multiple Hispanics denied.
Therefore, I assume that it would be difficult for a Hispanic person, to even purchase a firearm.

A Walmart, is a “soft target.” Most mass shooters choose these places, for that very reason. It is not unrealistic, to consider that the gunman would not have chosen a place where lots of people were carrying. But, I wager it’s harder to get a concealed weapons permit, if you are Hispanic.
Everyone carrying is NOT the answer. But, it is a deterrence to mass shooters. However, it is not supposed to be the general public’s responsibility to stop mass shootings.

I would also have reservations, about shooting a mass killer. You could definitely be mistaken for the shooter… Being a minority, could indeed make you a more likely target, by first responders. It’s not as bad as the media makes it out to be, but it would be a concernof mine, if I were a minority.

Would Santorum support it? I don’t think that I am qualified to give a good response…

gorillapaws's avatar

@MrGrimm888 ”...is a deterrence to mass shooters…” how is the threat of death a deterrent to a suicidal maniac?

ragingloli's avatar

They guy in Dayton was killed within 30 seconds.
Within those 30 seconds, he still managed to kill 9 people, and wounding 27 more.
They know they can cause immense carnage, no matter how quickly they are killed themselves, so people “packing heat” is hardly a deterrant, for someone who already knows he likely will not walk away from it alive.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Because these people (killers) are cowards. Why else wear body armor?

Most of these people are suicidal. But, they choose soft targets, because they expect to inflict mass casualties, before their death. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting, at a gun show?
IMO, they expect to be taken out by SWAT. Not civilians. And they can’t get the highest body count, in a place where they may be taken out by an old man, with a pistol.

As I said. I don’t think that a store full of people with guns, is the answer. But statistically, they don’t attack armed crowds.

I don’t claim to have an answer, to stop them. But, they don’t attack crowds that they think will be armed… And sadly, they mostly aren’t stupid “maniacs.”
They scout their chosen locations. And then take action.

The Vegas shooter, is a classic example. He shot from elevation, and there would have been no way of people with pistols, hitting him.

Never underestimate an opponent. It would be great, if they were just stupid. Most of these attacks, are well planned, and the shooter isn’t trying to die, before killing as many people as possible.

It’s hard to stop a single, motivated killer. There’s no easy answer.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Loli. You are correct, in some of these cases. But not in others.

I also highly doubt that the guy was incapacitated, in 30 seconds… I think that’s BS. He killed his sister, among others, but that points (to me) that she was the primary target. Once that was accomplished, he didn’t care about anything else.

JLeslie's avatar

@gorillapaws Well, like I said, I agree with @ragingloli. I was talking mostly about killing or harming a few who are coming for me. It wouldn’t work. I’ve been in a bad situation and my first reaction is to freeze. Ugh. I’d need training to react well and not have my gun taken from me.

In Israel everyone has the training not to be equipped to kill against their own government, but so the population can function as an army at any given time. It is a reaction to the Holocaust in my opinion, and add in their neighbors hating them there. It seems like a horrible way to live, I personally much prefer when I live in cities that have very little gun ownership, I feel much safer.

zenvelo's avatar

We already know that Rick Santorum is not the sharpest spoon n the drawer. But your question is missing an important qualifier: …in favor of undocumented aliens carrying guns? really depends on what kind of undocumented migrants.

Latinos? Hell no. Irish and Russians who overstayed their visa five years ago? Sure.

gorillapaws's avatar

@MrGrimm888 “Have you ever heard of a mass shooting, at a gun show? ”

I think a motivated sicko could turn a gun show into a total bloodbath with the right planning. With enough confusion, noise, disorientation and reduced visibility, you could have everyone thinking everyone else is the shooter—especially if you had a team.

KNOWITALL's avatar

No, I don’t think he’d be in favor of that and frankly, I don’t think many Americans would be either. I don’t think some of you live in or understand gun culture, at least here in America.

@JLeslie I think everyone should be armed and ready. Just find a hand gun that fits you well, do some target practice and you’ll get it, or not, but you’ll have the knowledge. Just remember, Red you’re dead! (safety off)

Astute comments @MrGrimm.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’ve lived in parts of the country that are very gun oriented and parts where people never talk about guns and likely don’t own guns, and the areas with fewer guns and less gun talk and fewer guns around feels much safer. I’d bet a lot of the cities, states , and countries, with fewer guns actually are much safer, especially if you rule out hunting rifles. I know some states and countries have a large percentage of the population that have guns and their violence is low, but many of those countries have extremely strict gun laws. They also tend not to have a lot of extreme poverty and other factors.

I’m a pretty good shot actually. Where I live I can do target practice with air guns (it’s free twice weekly if I feel like going). I go when guests visiting me want to go. They have rifles and pistols and all the ammo. It’s included in my activities fee.

I understand why my friends in Memphis feel like laws against guns will leave the good people without protection and bad people still with the guns, it’s because the gun ownership is so huge there, and there is so much gun violence. If I had never lived there I never would have understood that point of view. Everywhere else I’ve lived gives me the POV of most liberals—get rid of the guns.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I am completely the opposite and from what I read from the FBI on gun-free zones being far more dangerous, I would have to disagree on a factual basis. But your feelings are important, too.

You’ll never get the guns from the American people. Trump did the bump stock thing, they’re still out there. Nothing will be effective.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL ” I think everyone should be armed and ready…”

Insanely idiotic

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Hey, if you want to give up your constitutional right to defend yourself and your property, that’s your certainly your choice. In rural areas, our options are wait for the police or defend yourself, not many choose to wait.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “if you want to give up your constitutional right to defend yourself…”

I don’t have any problem with people joining their national guard if they want to participate in a well regulated militia. I also think a shotgun is perfectly sufficient for home defense.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Would it surprise you to know that most folks here would agree that AK’s are overkill for civilian needs? It’s true. Just leave us our shotguns and handguns and many of us are perfectly happy.

A friend gave me a handgun about five years ago and I called all over to see how to register it, only to discover it wasn’t required. I passed my background check for conceal & carry, too.

It’s not us normal gun owners you need to worry about, it’s the mentally unstable people who get or have access to one. You all know that already, I’d hope.

stanleybmanly's avatar

At this point laws regulating guns are about as useful as laws regulating grass., speed or opioids. How many people, crazy or not, would find any difficulty obtaining any of the items on that list? Once the weapons are commonplace the rate of killings will rise to reflect the ease with which the weaponry can be acquired!.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly Or the level of mental unstability in our country.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@gorillapaws . If it were up to me, NOBODY would carry. You are failing to understand the situation. Even gorillas protect their territory, to the death. It’s a part of nature. Not one I’m fond of. But apparently, in this world, it is what it is. Yes. Shotguns are perfectly capable of outperforming even an advanced marksman, with an AR (within 25 yards, or so.). But you can’t carry a shotgun, in your pocket. There are numerous flaws, to your logic. Perhaps, just ignorance of firearms in general.
That’s ok.
A 12 gauge shotgun, loaded with 00 buckshot, is basically multiple rounds of a 0.22 caliber firing weapon. That’s not going to stop someone who is wearing body armor, with trauma plates. You have a LOT to learn, about firearms, before making your assertions.

I understand, and agree, with your concerns. But you apparently have very little knowledge of the subject.

A .270, is a small caliber bullet as well. But with much more velocity. A 0.243, is more than sufficient to kill a large deer. But it’s not the size of the projectile. It’s the velocity.

An AK-47, generally uses a 7.62×39 bullet. That’s a 0.30 caliber projectile. Consider that a .380 subcompact, is the preferred weapon of concealed gun carriers. Still a .30 cal projectile, but with far less muzzle velocity. That doesn’t mean that you can shoot it out with a pistol, versus an AK, or SKS (Chinese version of the same weapon.)

Barrel length, grain count, and many other factors, are variables. Even the tip of the projectile, is very important, if the weapons have similar caliber. It’s not as simple as, well, we both have a gun.

If you are interested, there is a great deal of literature explaining the differences.
A deer hunter, for example, will choose a very different bullet (of the same caliber,from the same gun) as a boar hunter.

Even a FMJ round, is highly different from a defense round, when considering what soft tissue it is to be used against. Police usually use hollow points. They are lethal, against soft tissue, but will not ricochet, like an AP round. Therefore, hypothetically, reducing the amount of unintended targets.

An AP round, has greater penetration, but less stopping power, than a hollow point.

If you want to stop a car engine, use an AP round. If you want to stop the driver, use a hollow point.

A single action gun, is more accurate, but has a much slower rate of fire.
A double action, or semi-auto, is far less accurate, but can put more rounds in a target.
Full auto, is extremely inaccurate. Most users of these weapons, are trained to aim at the knees of a target, with the likely rise in the muzzle, as it fires.

A bolt fed weapon, is the most accurate. But is much slower, to reload, and typically has lower magazine capacity.

A revolver, is less likely to jam, but has less capacity.

A semi-auto pistol, will be less accurate, and more likely to jam.

There are many different types of weapons. All, have different designs. And many different types of rounds, that have pros and cons.

Even the same weapon, can have different parts, for different reasons. Some ARs, are gas operated. Some, are piston driven. Some are better at being used in mud, or dessert. Others, are better in perfect conditions.

Shotguns made for large game, are generally heavier than those used for fowl.

The length of a shotgun barrel, can make it more lethal up close, or at a distance. So. Your home defense shotguns, will have the shortest barrel possible, to spread the shot widest, at close range. Conversely, duck guns, will have the longest barrel possible, to spread the shot as far as possible.

A gun, is not just a gun. Nor is it’s ammo…

I have several different types of ammo, for each of my guns. And usually different mags, with each type preloaded. But. You have to be aware that spring loaded mags, will get worse if fully loaded, all of the time. So I rotate clips, and rounds. Rarely, do I keep them fully loaded, for more than a few weeks.

“You have much to learn Young Skywalker.”

Yellowdog's avatar

@JLeslie I disagree. You can do a lot to negotiate with enemy soldiers, if you’re good at speeches. If that fails, you can strangle them with a garden hose or tie them up and hit them with a heavy iron rake.

MrGrimm888's avatar

That’s called failed diplomacy….

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL Suppose the latent mental instability is always there. Let’s say for example that a fixed percentage of our population looks at these shootings then concludes “that’s for me”. And to stay within your line of thought, the same can be said for those who would prefer to run amuck with motor vehicles, IEDs, etc. why are we not confronted with recurring episodes of these other methods to the extent of the shootings? For example there are certainly more drivers of automobiles among us than people proficient with weapons. Why the assault rifle?

MrGrimm888's avatar

An assault rifle, is just a tool. So were the planes in 9/11.

kritiper's avatar

It’s only fair if they do…

JLeslie's avatar

Guns are not just a tool. Guns are made to harm people. Planes are made to transport people. It’s true almost anything can be used as a weapon, but guns have a purpose, and gun culture centers around shooting things. For people not accustomed to gun talk it’s very uncomfortable to be around it. It was for me anyway, I’m more used to it now. Still can make me a little uncomfortable though. It’s the same as Religious talk for me. People sending it asking for prayers or saying they are praying for me used to make me very uncomfortable. Now, I just say thank you and appreciate the thought.

kritiper's avatar

The idea of an assault rifle and all of those bullets carries a problem with the gun itself. It rapidly overheats. The guy in Las Vegas seemed to have the right idea, just way more than was practical for his intent.
The original M-16 had problems with overheating and jamming, so the M-16A1 had a forward assist to force the bolt to close completely, a barrel of improved metallurgy, and a chrome plated chamber.

gorillapaws's avatar

@MrGrimm888 ”...That’s not going to stop someone who is wearing body armor, with trauma plates.”

I’m sure you’re right about that. Is that the threat level we expect Americans to defend against? How many Americans died last year that tried to shoot an intruder with a shotgun but were thwarted by “body armor with trauma plates?”

If we follow that train of logic, then it escalates endlessly to the point of absurdity: I need to be able to buy anti-tank mines do defend against someone attacking my home with a M1 Abrams, I need to be able to buy a man-portable surface-to-air-misslie to defend against threats to my home from the air. I should be able to buy sea mines for the pond in my backyard in the event someone attacks via mini-sub. It’s totally fucking ridiculous.

If you’re trying to defend against an armed assault with a gang of people in body armor, then I would think that a concrete bunker, cameras, and razor wire would probably be more useful than handguns and assault rifles. The amount of Americans dying every year from guns trumps anyone’s “need” to defend from a battalion of ninjas in body armor with tanks and subs.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I agree. But some of these shooters, are wearing armor. That why I thought it was relevant to the thread.

Don’t get me started on mines. They are FAR worse, than any gun.

gorillapaws's avatar

I think if we limit weapons to bolt-action rifles (with some maximum muzzle energy), pump-action shotguns, and handguns that require manual cocking between rounds, along with restrictions on certain types of ammo (e.g. armor-piercing) the number of handgun deaths would plummet.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I wish you were right. But I disagree. A handful of Tylenol, will kill you just like a gun. You would just suffer more. Killing people, is easy. Coexistence, seems to be harder…

gorillapaws's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Well if we see psychos mass murdering people by force-feeding them Tylenol and then preventing them from getting medical attention, then I’d be happy to admit that I’m wrong.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws You do realize that many gun-loving Americans would support that idea right?

Hopefully you haven’t been completely brainwashed into thinking any of us want more people to die. It’s finding the balance between our constitutional right and protecting each other from the loonies.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I personally sold firearms, for about 3 years. Some women, for example, wouldn’t be able to leave their house, without knowing they have a gun. Guns aren’t the worst thing in this world. They are primarily a defensive tool.

Should we take these guns, from women, who wouldn’t be able to live normal lives without them?

There are many variables, to gun owners. Painting them all, as killers, is not accurate.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Agreed. It’s a weapon of self-defense for many of us, again especially in rural areas, not a wmd. I don’t even own an AK or anything, but I know people, mostly white men, that do.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I have a shotgun, by my guitar, against the wall. I sleep VERY well, knowing that I can defend myself, from almost anything. I have no intention of ever using it. But it has gotten me, out of danger, multiple times. That’s, IMO, your basic gun owner…

stanleybmanly's avatar

There is and will be no protection if A. loonies walk amongst us undiagnosed. B.Automatic weapons are plentiful and traded like baseball cards and C. A shooting rampage can result from a mere whim. We must recognize that there is no defense of the second amendment without acceptance of the reality that the mass of weaponry in the country assures anyone with loose wiring the opportunity to shoot up a church or school. Now you can say that we Americans are crazier than other peoples. You can even point to Trump to bolster your case case. But to whine over accelerating massacres while a mountain of weapons accumulates in front of you, then conclude the mountain a secondary factor to the pile of corpses goes beyond self deception. Those defending the second amendment should cop to recognition that the levels of carnage are the necessary consequence as the stack of corpses piles up beside the mountain of weapons. We’ve long passed the point where there’s a chance in hell of any government confiscating that mountain, and the truth is that regulation of those weapons grows ever more pointless as the death toll climbs behind our lethal gun tumor.

MrGrimm888's avatar

When someone knocks on my door, unexpected, I pump my gun, and they start telling me why they are here. You don’t even have to speak English. People know what that sound means. Even some dogs know, what that pump sound means. You’re in serious danger. I live in a better neighborhood now, but I used to pump it by the door, if someone was knocking, at 3AM. They NEVER come back. It’s a deterrence. And it works well. “Don’t fuck with that guys house.” Like I said, I sleep VERY well, with my Mossberg 500, at my disposal.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly You do know how to turn a phrase, I’ll give you that, Stan.

But yes, piles of bodies from these shooting plus abortions, what a country.

stanleybmanly's avatar

But this isn’t a matter of rhetoric. ALL countries are in effect loaded with undiagnosed, unbalanced people. It doesn’t help that HERE even those diagnosed are pretty much out on their own. But that is almost irrelevant in a place where effectively everyone can pick up a gun.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’m sure you look at what I write and conclude that I’m anti gun and those who own them. But that isn’t the case. What I am against is the supposition that mass shootings can be blamed on the loosening of our morals, family decay, the elimination of prayer in schools or most of the other arguments littering this page. The simple answer, the obvious answer and the correct answer is that the easier it is to mow people down, the more people you are destined to witness as victims of that fate. The crazies will always be with us. They can evolve in an instant at the drop of a hat. A man angry enough to beat his wife can shoot her and the kids before there is time to think about it if the gun is in plain sight. By the same token, she can shoot him and the kids. It’s what rage or frustration does to ALL of us. As I have said over and over, the number of weapons among us makes consideration of their elimination pointless anyway, so we should step up to admitting what it is EXACTLY which confronts us, and hope the rest of the world learns from another of our many mistakes. After all, the time must come when our glut in weaponry is so extreme that the overflow must go somewhere.

Yellowdog's avatar

Aliens carry their own guns. They shoot you with them so that you don’t remember that you encountered an alien.

There used to be a Father Guido Sarducci i on the old Saturday Night Live skits of the 1970s and ‘80s, who worked in the United States as gossip columnist and rock critic for the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano (sometimes mentioned as The Vatican Enquirer, a take-off of the National Enquirer tabloid).

According to Sarducci . you could encounter aliens all the time, and because they shoot you with their gun, you have no recollection of any of it.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanley All I hear is you want my guns. Not going to happen.

Focus on the criminals, not innocent law-abiding citizens.

Should all men be castrated so theres no more rape?

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t need your gun. They’re eveywmhere. I can walk out my door, break the window on the first parked car I see on the street with an American flag sticker—mission accomplished. Pay attention. If anyone here advocated the confiscation of your gun, I would regard the measure as a waste of time and effort. By the way, if I (or the government) took your gun, how difficult would it be realistically for you to replace it?

Yellowdog's avatar

The Democrats have given me plenty of reason to suspect their motives.

Look at Venezuela, where the citizens were attempting to fight tanks and military with rocks and sticks. Because a frighteningly similar Democratic Socialist party took the guns and gun rights away from the citizens.

We’ve just been through two days of blaming Trump and “white supremacists” (Anyone who opposes the Democrat party) for the works of lone gunmen terrorists. There are news anchors and politicians insisting that Trump be denied campaign rallies (all of which have greatly emphasized nothing but Americans working together and pulling together).

With this type of demonizing and caricaturing one’s political opposition, it is frightening to think they are trying to do away with our right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government, which our nation’s founders had insight enough to write into our constitution.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanley A walk across the street to any neighbor.

Most Reps arent afraid of you taking guns. They’re afraid they’ll need to take up arms from the druggies, the thieves, protect their kids from some random at the grocery store. Many feel Democrats are undermining our security and they are pissed enough to re-elect Trump to stop that.

stanleybmanly's avatar

So we are going to find out if we are indeed better off when everyone is armed? And you believe it is the Democrats who make this necessary?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanley What solutions are there that still fulfill our constitutional rights?

I dont just blame Dems, no, but I do think the incredibly destabilizing negativity and constant state of outrage, as well as supporting the illegal entry, sanctuary cities, etc..does indeed make the Dems partially responsible for the political divide.

Its understandable politically, you all are obsessed with taking down Trump, but I truly believe it has not been by the ‘high road’ Mrs Obama idealized.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanley May I ask, if you had to choose between standing up for immigrants or the American people and legal immigrants already here, to protect, who would you choose?

Frankly, I believe this question is the heart of the matter. Reps think Dems have sold out America, Dems think Reps have no compassion. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “What solutions are there that still fulfill our constitutional rights?”

The 2nd amendment for hundreds of years of American history has been understood to mean that it applied to “well regulated” state militias. It was only until recently, when a Conservative supreme court engaged in judicial activism (something they pretend to oppose) that they issued a different ruling contrary to hundreds of years of precedent.

This is Stevens’ dissenting opinion that pretty much eviscerates the logic of Scalia’s opinion in Heller.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL Starting with your first question, if you think about it, there is no solution to slowing down the accelerating mass shootings if the 2nd amendment says everyone is entitled to a gun. But as I have said, it is now a moot point. If God himself announced on public television that He is unhappy with our interpretation of that amendment, and the Congress banned immediately the manufacture and ownership of military grade assault rifles, the mass murder rate in our country would continue to accelerate for decades. The psychopaths, criminals etc. are part of us. These people shooting up schools and amusement parks were once someone’s darling baby boys. There is no knowing which will leave the tracks or what will bend them out of shape. It’s what life does, and does most effectively in a dog eat dog environment. But never mind my philosophizing. The fact is, we can’t be trusted with guns. Those crazy people, and the criminals are US. And it idoesn’t matter if the percentage of these souls is 2% or below IF the weaponry is readily available.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And you should NOT fall for the false narrative of the immigrant debacle being a case of them against us. When someone of your intelligence says such a thing, my eyes water up. Were the choice actually as you define it, I would of course dump those poor souls and look out for my own. But when a man notorious for bragging about his gold plated bathroom fixtures complains that “the melting pot is full, and any addition to its disgusting contents threatens to bubble over onto “our” pristine WHITE stove” you might think those hearing such a thing might consider the veracity of such a declaration. I want you to think about something. How would you feel if you discovered that you lived in the one country on this planet which could easily feed everyone in Central and Latin America hungry enough to pick up and leave? The staggering potential of our country to do good in this world is so recklessly squandered on greed and petty meanness that we all should be embarrassed.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly “The staggering potential of our country to do good in this world is so recklessly squandered on greed and petty meanness that we all should be embarrassed.”

Absolutely, I love my country but we do have issues, which is why I ran for public office. I want to help foster positive change, but you know our politicians are some of the greediest people I’ve ever met. Even on a local/ state level, I see and hear things that make me cringe. I can’t even imagine how bad it is in DC, just based on convicted politicians on both sides of the aisle.

So let me ask you this, why aren’t we doing emergency drops on the border or close to? Like the food and water we send overseas? Is it happening and I’m unaware, or are Dems not pushing for that, or ?

MrGrimm888's avatar

People do leave food, and mainly water at spots on the southern border. I have read several articles, that say anti-immigration folks destroy the supplies. I have not personally witnessed this. But it sounds feasible…

Yellowdog's avatar

Considering that the border patrol themselves provide these things especially…

MrGrimm888's avatar

Border Patrol, is a tough job. It’s got to be even harder in South Texas, given the terrain,and heat…

KNOWITALL's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Maybe we should send all the homeless vets down to the border, pay them so they have a place to live, and get them some help. Oh wait, they’re Americans, they don’t count.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I’m afraid that I don’t understand your comment. I imagine it’s an insult, but that’s all I’m picking up…..

Yellowdog's avatar

I get it. Democrats are more concerned with unvetted, unknown,undocumented migrants entering the country en mass than they are with our own veterans, poor, minorities, etc. who have been neglected for years.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Yeah. And Republicans treat the homeless SO well….

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Yellowdog Why do we understand that and they don’t? Must be that imaginary and offensive southern culture. : )

@Grimmy You do know statistically Reps are more charitable right? Try again.

You dont seem like the kind of guy who’d take a dump on our flag, I wish I knew why the immigrants are so important to you. Even knowing how overburdened and in debt we are now. When does it stop?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Yes we are overburdened and in debt. But you fail to appreciate your answer is the direct descendant of “let them eat cake”. These are desperate people. They look at the humblest of us as fabulously wealthy, and compared to them, they are absolutely correct. These people aren’t walking 2000 miles merely to see Disneyland.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanley You dont understand my pov.

A friends husband got deported last week that had been here 14 years. Married with children. Paying taxes. Good man. I get it.

I dont understand not getting the paperwork done. Is it too hard, too expensive, why isnt it done in 14 years?

As far as my attitude, I think many of you are intentionally obtuse in regards to what a broken system can handle. When multiple Presidents say its a huge issue, you should listen. Obama, the liberal God, knew it, so give me a break.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t disagree that it’s a huge issue, as well as a distasteful necessity. Where I disagree is with the current approach toward expediting a solution. Trump, as usual is a public relations disaster as he is on most issues. The proof of this lies in the fact that advocates for immigrant rights will tell you that Obama deported undocumented aliens at TWICE the rate as Trump. He still holds the record for exporting aliens and achieved that record in the face of sanctuary cities as well as rigorous opposition from immigrant advocates utilizing the courts and smart sophisticated strategic organization. So why the howling acrimony and hornets nest resistance to ANYTHING Trump has to say on the matter? Now conservatives will claim that the liberals and their media simply gave Obama a pass and are dead set on persecution of the fool. But even if you grant that there may be some truth to this explanation, the extent and depth of the ferocity against against Trump on this matter is without precedent, with the determination of those opposed actually exceeding his own in vitriol—no mean feat. How come? The answer is simply that Trump is loud and stupid. His approach to the immigrant problem is the same as with every issue—loud, abrupt, with little forethought, and sparse preparation. It doesn’t help that he exhibits an infallible proclivity when presented with options to invariably choose the meanest most insensitive and undeniably controversial solution to whatever confronts him. If the mainstream media is biased against the fool, you might think he would have the sense not to hand them SO many opportunities to highlight his mean stupidity as the courts, regardless of the conservative campaign to crowd the bench with moronic judges, relentlessly slaps the fool around for his lame and openly illegal defiance of common sense and legal precedent. The man is hopeless.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly I think Trump is trying to do what he can, not only for 2020, but for the American people. I’m not opposed to that idea, regardless of which President gets a handle on it, as long as someone does.

I’d prefer it to be a smooth, “turn yourself in now and not risk deportation”, but at this point, I’m okay with deportation so we can begin to make inroads to a permanent solution.

ragingloli's avatar

A final solution, if you will.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL Are you also in favor of replacing the plaque at the base of the statue of liberty?

“...Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Maybe something like: “Fuck you! Go back to where you came from! (unless you’re white)

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL Of course he is “doing what he can”. THAT is the problem. ANY President is going to be in the business of deporting people. The distinction will lie in their ability to get the distasteful job done. And my point is that Trump fails miserably at this, simply because he lacks the mind capable of an empathic approach to ANYTHING. For example, Obama understood that the necessity to deport people coming here illegally is a shameful business and nothing to brag about. Confronted with the task of virtually emptying the ocean with a bucket, he went about concentrating on the seriously criminal elements among those entering the country, a number percentage wise small enough to assure a reasonable probability of manageable success. Contrast that with Trump’s approach—loudly declare EVERYONE a criminal, with their countries DELIBERATELY exporting their criminals to bury us in crime.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws You said that, not me.

@stanleybmanly Semantics.

If you really just want him to hang his head in shame for doing what must be done, don’t vote for the man. It’s a job. Which ya’ll understood when Obama did it.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL I didn’t make a statement, I was asking a question. Are you in favor of removing/editing the Statue of Liberty’s plaque? It’s message seems pretty inconsistent from what I’ve heard Trump saying. I guess my point is that it seems inconsistent to support Trump’s immigration policy and the Statue of Liberty.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL You still don’t get it. The man has no shame. He leaves US hanging our heads in shame for his callous and woeful lack of probity and decency. There is no honor in unnecessarily roughing up the defenseless. It is beneath the dignity of his office and an embarrassment to all of us.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws If you want to take it down, it won’t hurt my feelings. I’m all in favor of legally entering this country in the limits prescribed, as I’ve said multiple times. If that doesn’t suit you, it’s your problem, not mine.

@stanleybmanly How do you feel he’s roughing up the defenseless?
(Be sure of your reply please.)

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL Are you in favor of deporting immigrants who abuse the “Einstein Visa” process too?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL To begin with, by the labeling them depraved criminals and treating them as such. It’s equivalent to the definition of Americans as mass murderers. There’s no need for it, and it slanders them in defiance of the truth.

Yellowdog's avatar

@gorillapaws The “open borders” concept you espouse is a direct insult to all of those who came to the U.S. legally, especially the generation that came through Ellis Island to whom that statue was erected.

Unvetted immigration is a threat to our migrant communities foremost, as they are victimized by the criminals in their communities who bring drugs and force anyone they can intimidate into gangs or prostitution.

Why not learn something about the plight of these communities rather than what your privileged white politicians pretending to be ethnic minorities say about them.

Response moderated
gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL So if they’re here seeking asylum—as is COMPLETELY LEGAL to do so, then they shouldn’t be deported right? Also, it’s very likely that Melania came here illegally.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws If they keep up with their paperwork and legal situation, I have no issue with good citizens staying.

As far as Melania, prove it and get her deported, no skin off my arse.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The rich don’t get deported.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Goddammit. No one, is supporting “open borders.”

We just want people to have a chance, at legal citizenship. I’m just SO sorry, that it would change the culture of US… ~

If you care about border security, we need to have more, on the northern border. Otherwise, you’re clearly a racist. Peroid….

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I think people here 14 years illegally don’t make it legal, because how do they do that if there isn’t some sort of amnesty. I don’t know know this for a fact, but I’m guessing, if you are here without papers it’s hard to apply for papers when you are in the country illegally.

I’m not defending the people here 14 years without papers, I’m just saying it seems like a catch 22.

Plus, even if the US government will consider papers for those people, they might be afraid of being considered and rejected.

I think, and this is just my opinion, is the fed looked the other way and allowed illegal immigrants to live here and work here. The government knows where a lot of the immigrants are. Once we allow these people to live here for many years and their children are school age and older, I think we need to give them legal status. We looked the other way too long, and now they and their children are basically Americans. The crack down needs to be more swift and more consistent if we are going to crackdown. I know that sounds like rewarding bad behavior, like if they slip through the cracks they can eventually get their legal status, but at least in the past, it seemed almost inhumane to send parents with children who are being raised in America back out of the country. If they are 2 years old that’s one thing, but a child who is say 11 it’s more complicated. America their country.

Part of why the government looks the other way is the immigrants are part of our economy. It’s like an underground they all know about, and I wouldn’t be surprised if corporations and politicians are in bed together and washing each other’s hands.

I’m actually with you that I don’t like people here for so long without a legal status. Or, here on a tourist visa and working. We need to fix it. Democrat and Republican politicians like it messy right now, it helps them get votes.

MrGrimm888's avatar

There’s definitely a political motivation to all of this.

Another reason why I WILL NEVER VOTE…. Voting, is just participating in the game….

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Completely agree.

Maybe educating Americans on the process is what could help clarify and defuse.

You and I are not dumb, both know immigrants, and we arent sure. Makes sense. I truly believe education is the key to many of these divisive issues.

Although I’m not convinced theres no responsibility to hire an atty on the immigrants part. I’ll try to find out, since that local just got deported.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Without a lawyer? How about THAT as a definition of defenseless.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanley There are attorneys here who help the Mexicans in Monett, MO at the Tyson chicken plant get legal. Mostly free. Its great, we need more lawyers to step up.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I agree. But there are those among us who have already labeled such attorneys “traitors”.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther