-
Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.
It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!
Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.
Good Ol' Discussion
- Thread starter RANOVRU
- Start date
wings_of_fire
Quarry Creeper
The whole of middle east should stick to milking camels and camel racing. That will bring peace.
I would also advocate for their hillbilly version of FOFF. That is pretty fun to watch.
wings_of_fire
Quarry Creeper
Thanks ...Will check that tommorow on broadband.
RANOVRU
Quarry Creeper
Letting 10,000 refugee's in is just plain stupid but 'testing' them to see if they're christian is hilarious. :lmao:
Last edited:
Who is testing them, because yeah, that would be funny...
RANOVRU
Quarry Creeper
I honestly was a little uninformed on what exactly qualifies a person as a "refugee" so I looked around. This is from CNN's site so take that for what you will.
"What is a refugee?
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her home country.
As such, refugees can apply for asylum in the United States, a process that could take years.
Getting refugee status isn't easy.
The applicants have to prove that if they return to their home country, they'll be injured because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or their political opinion.
"Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm," the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says.
The Central Americans overwhelming the U.S.-Mexican border are Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans. Many are fleeing drug- and gang-fueled violence back home.
Is the violence -- any kind -- grounds for a refugee claim? Not necessarily.
The violence has to be targeted to a person specifically, and that's where things get complicated. Every case is different, and because of a law signed by President George W. Bush in 2008, children fall into a special class.
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Action Act, named after a 19th century British abolitionist, is designed to crack down on the global child slave trade. The U.S. law ensured that children who came to the country got a full immigration hearing instead of being turned away or sent back. The hearing would determine whether the children had a valid claim for asylum.
The law is now cited as one cause behind a projected 90,000 children from Central America and Mexico who will cross the U.S. border alone or with other children this year, a huge increase over the 39,000 that the Border Patrol detained last year.
Asylum is a protection available to people who are already in the United States or are seeking admission at the U.S. border."
The last sentence in that description makes me think that "inviting" people to come over doesn't exactly meet the standards. Moreover, the whole refugee mindset just seems like a loophole in our immigration process.
"What is a refugee?
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her home country.
As such, refugees can apply for asylum in the United States, a process that could take years.
Getting refugee status isn't easy.
The applicants have to prove that if they return to their home country, they'll be injured because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or their political opinion.
"Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm," the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says.
The Central Americans overwhelming the U.S.-Mexican border are Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans. Many are fleeing drug- and gang-fueled violence back home.
Is the violence -- any kind -- grounds for a refugee claim? Not necessarily.
The violence has to be targeted to a person specifically, and that's where things get complicated. Every case is different, and because of a law signed by President George W. Bush in 2008, children fall into a special class.
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Action Act, named after a 19th century British abolitionist, is designed to crack down on the global child slave trade. The U.S. law ensured that children who came to the country got a full immigration hearing instead of being turned away or sent back. The hearing would determine whether the children had a valid claim for asylum.
The law is now cited as one cause behind a projected 90,000 children from Central America and Mexico who will cross the U.S. border alone or with other children this year, a huge increase over the 39,000 that the Border Patrol detained last year.
Asylum is a protection available to people who are already in the United States or are seeking admission at the U.S. border."
The last sentence in that description makes me think that "inviting" people to come over doesn't exactly meet the standards. Moreover, the whole refugee mindset just seems like a loophole in our immigration process.
Last edited:
wings_of_fire
Quarry Creeper
Asylum is not given so easlily in Europe or America.
Most of these asylum seekers end up returning to their home country or are sent to detainment centers where they live in inhumane conditions.
Before the middle east war broke out, there have been assylum seekers mostly women that were illegally brought in for sex trade or poor men who were duped by agents with false promise of livelyhood in a developed nation. Most of these people end up in a no mans land. They loose their self respect, hope, mental stability, health, they don't get enough food to eat, they are not allowed to work hence they have no money and there is no one to take care of them.
Imagine what these people go through.
No country gives asylum so easily. Gross human rights violations occur, but they are not spoken about since they impact political stability.
Most of these asylum seekers end up returning to their home country or are sent to detainment centers where they live in inhumane conditions.
Before the middle east war broke out, there have been assylum seekers mostly women that were illegally brought in for sex trade or poor men who were duped by agents with false promise of livelyhood in a developed nation. Most of these people end up in a no mans land. They loose their self respect, hope, mental stability, health, they don't get enough food to eat, they are not allowed to work hence they have no money and there is no one to take care of them.
Imagine what these people go through.
No country gives asylum so easily. Gross human rights violations occur, but they are not spoken about since they impact political stability.
Last edited:
wings_of_fire
Quarry Creeper
I have just gone through all the pages of this thread.
I have seen many people with one common issue that is, having kids when they cannot afford them.
Is it right to have kids without having a sturdy financial background?
I have seen many people with one common issue that is, having kids when they cannot afford them.
Is it right to have kids without having a sturdy financial background?
Last edited:
JeremyH
I wanna be Dave
In this country it's a way of life. People use having kids as a way to earn a living.....and our government endorses it by continuing to use tax payer dollars to support these people.
WHITE-TRASH
I wanna be Dave
Why would those people worry about being responsible? We, the hard working middle class will support those crotch fruit from cradle to grave whether we like it or not.
Nailed it.
We have no kids, I highly prefer the 4 legged barking variety.
The Violator
RCC Addict
The bleeding heart liberals think that these children should be taken care of at any expense. Unless its not fell out of the mother, then its OK to kill it and sell the carcass on the open market.
In my house, both me and the wife work. We live in the ghetto, because I wanted to own a house, not have a house own me, buy used cars when we need them, buy clothing from walmart, and other discount chains. I also pay $380 a month for health insurance through my job, because shit happens and we need the coverage. The wife pays dental and vision through her work, between them we are nearly $600 a month in health coverage. Once we set a little, and I mean a little away in 401k retirement, there is not much left. No fancy vacations, no $500 shoes.
We have one kid. I would have loved to have a second, but daycare was $180 a week. Plus diapers, clothes, etc, kids costs $1000 a month.
Then you have Obama's kids. Shit out 5 kids, no baby daddy, live in free housing, get a free phone, free power, food stamps, day care even though mamma does not have a job. Then cry that its not fair. **** them.
People cry top 1%. They already pay 50% in taxes. I am not in that bracket, so why should I care? Because as a decent human, I do not think anyone should have to give half their stuff to the government so it can be handed it to someone who did nothing to earn it. When you are handed everything, you end up with people like the Missouri State, protesting against something that never even happened. You have an idiot on a hunger strike because he is so repressed, growing up in a $20 MILLION home.
RANOVRU
Quarry Creeper
Abortion really hasn't gained the traction that it should have by now in the US. The kid having issue is a combination of bad decisions, culture and a way to get free money.
My miss and I have been fawking for 15yrs and have no kids. We don't want kids and IF something did happen early abortion would be the answer. We prefer the four legged barking type that Whitetrash mentioned. Birth control works but that's a decision folks have to make and take seriously.
But as mentioned there's more to it than just that. Some people expect to make a living off the taxpayers from it and others just think that culturally at a certain age you're just supposed to have kids.
There are enough people in the world and enough that are still procreating. Add to that that in this day and age everyone else tells you what to do with/to your kids and you've got some pretty damn good reasons not to have any, aside from the extra responsibility that not everyone wants or should have.
My miss and I have been fawking for 15yrs and have no kids. We don't want kids and IF something did happen early abortion would be the answer. We prefer the four legged barking type that Whitetrash mentioned. Birth control works but that's a decision folks have to make and take seriously.
But as mentioned there's more to it than just that. Some people expect to make a living off the taxpayers from it and others just think that culturally at a certain age you're just supposed to have kids.
There are enough people in the world and enough that are still procreating. Add to that that in this day and age everyone else tells you what to do with/to your kids and you've got some pretty damn good reasons not to have any, aside from the extra responsibility that not everyone wants or should have.
And what I see from all these refugees it's just more people to take care of. More free housing,food,medical and their probably gonna need a cell phone and computer also. In our country and for sure in my state Il we are so in debt to give more hand outs is just stupid. But I'm sure when they register to vote it will be a vote for the democrats. We waste so much money on free loaders it makes me sick.
Didn't you say you were a Christian?
Psalm 82:4 - Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
