RE: GOP goes from "anchor baby" to "chain migration'.
January 10, 2018 at 2:53 pm
(This post was last modified: January 10, 2018 at 3:01 pm by henryp.)
Sounds good in theory, but who really wants to foot the cost? How many people could live in your home? Two in a bed, one on the couch, 4 on the floor? That's how they'd rock it in plenty of countries? And we have homeless people in the US. You looking to add 6 roommates? I'd assume not. Because we like our standard of living.
We spend 60 billion a year on pets while we have humans starving in our country.
The decision has already been made, and it's not "Let's take care of all the humans of the world." It's let's have a really high standard of living, and maybe we'll share some scraps with the less fortunate if we feel like it.
Why don't the natives take back the land? Because they can't. Because the immigrants killed most of them, took all their land, and stuck them on reservations. That's not a ringing endorsement for immigration.
We spend 60 billion a year on pets while we have humans starving in our country.
The decision has already been made, and it's not "Let's take care of all the humans of the world." It's let's have a really high standard of living, and maybe we'll share some scraps with the less fortunate if we feel like it.
(January 10, 2018 at 12:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Yeah.... good point, Wally.
![[Image: a622c5e7c6835dde357ceab541cf123b--politi...images.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a6/22/c5/a622c5e7c6835dde357ceab541cf123b--political-cartoons-political-images.jpg)
Why don't the natives take back the land? Because they can't. Because the immigrants killed most of them, took all their land, and stuck them on reservations. That's not a ringing endorsement for immigration.
