Be smart.
Don’t be there.
Not before the trouble starts, not during the trouble, not after.
The best place to be if a protest starts is somewhere else. Like an hour ago.
There is noting good that will happen at the protests.
Like the best place to be if a gunfight breaks out:……elsewhere…preferably well before.
There is no reason to be there, and every reason not to.
Yes, one is much safer taking the easy path,
The mindset of “just stay away” has deep roots in human behavior under threat. It’s a natural response. But history — especially the Holocaust — teaches that silence and absence can be complicit. Not everyone can or should be on the front lines of protest, but everyone has a role in resisting injustice: through speech, through solidarity, through voting, through presence when it matters.
What we know. We know the majority being rounded up are not the hardened criminals Trump earlier promised to target. We know that Trump promised to overtake Democratic cities with the military regardless of invitation. We know these people are not eating our pets. So this situation bears unsettling resemblance to early-stage dynamics seen in oppressive regimes, including Nazi Germany. The lesson is not to equate ICE to the Gestapo, but to recognize how the normalization of state overreach, dehumanization, and public silence can lay the groundwork for grave injustice.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
And the troublemakers, on both sides, will negate any advantage your presence might make.
See also the original BLM marches vs what actually occurred, same same Jan 6th. Both times people wanted change and then their presence cost them….. and it morphed into something bad.
If you go to one of those protests today, you are an idiot wasting your time as it will make no difference to the illegals being arrested for being here illegally.
My point was that no matter which side you are on, you only mark yourself to the Feds for no gain. Your presence will make no difference.
Your quote does not apply here as these are not innocent people, but lawbreakers in the country illegally, they know it and have broken the law for years. Criminals, each and every one. They have no right to be here, despite what jerks like you would believe.
If you want them here, start sponsoring them for citizenship and begin housing them in your home.
Or STFU
I beg to differ on your blanket insistence that “they have no right to be here”? I suppose we need to define precisely who “they” are. If you’re referring to those who crossed the boarder illegally, I’m with you. If you’re referring to those brought over as children and have grown to be law abiding and productive workers, I respectfully disagree and feel that other options can be employed.
But as I’ve factually pointed out, a significant number of migrants from the past decade crossed legally as asylum seekers. And what we’re seeing and hearing from the Trump administration is that they are criminals, released from prisons, the worse of the worse, eating our dogs. While none of that stands to scrutiny, it’s interesting that unlike Obama and Biden who deported an impressive amount of illegal criminals, Trump I appears to be swarming the low hanging fruit of Home DePot and meat processors to meat quotas of rounding up brown asylum seekers and Dreamers rather than going after actual criminals.
I have no plans to attend a live protest and I have no intent of sponsoring citizenship for anyone anymore than on a crusade of saving saving the chickens. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t call out a bully for plucking the feathers off of them only to blame the other farmer.
You really think the majority of illegal aliens here in the US are “Dreamers”
Really?
The majority are people who crossed the borders to work and hope for asylum. Most, if caught and granted a hearing, never show for the hearing, making them doubly criminals…
They all, each and every one, need to be forced back across the border. If they wish to do things the correct and legal way, then I would allow that they could be fast tracked, but to have no repercussions for their actions is also wrong. No “Amnesty” for any of them,
Few, if any have any loyalty to the US. Few want anything besides to be left alone and to gather what they can from people willing to give them something, be it churches/charities or the State and Federal governments. They are, as I have stated before, a net drain on our society. You claim otherwise but cannot provide data to show it (Hint: No one has ever been able to back that claim, simply because it isn’t true) .
If you really believe that these people should be granted asylum, then start with a family: sponsor them, and live the words you write. “Let the word be the deed” and all that.
Else you are a hypocrite.
I never once said or implied that most immigrants are Dreamers. Those are your words, not mine. I did however question the rationale in their deportations, particularly if they have no criminal record and are productive.
Thank you for finally acknowledging asylum seekers, albeit somewhat uninformed of the legalities involved.
Claim 1: “The majority are people who crossed the borders to work and hope for asylum.”
Partly true.
Many migrants crossing the southern U.S. border are seeking work or fleeing violence, and many request asylum.
According to DHS and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in recent years, a growing percentage of arrivals are families or individuals seeking asylum, especially from Central America.
Economic migration and asylum-seeking are distinct under U.S. law: the former is generally not legal without a visa; the latter is legal under both U.S. and international law, even if the person crosses the border unlawfully.
FACT: U.S. law (8 U.S.C. § 1158) allows any foreign national physically present in the U.S. to apply for asylum, regardless of how they entered.
Claim 2: “Most, if caught and granted a hearing, never show for the hearing, making them doubly criminals…”
False or grossly exaggerated.
Multiple studies and immigration court records show that the majority of asylum seekers do show up for their hearings.
A 2022 TRAC Immigration report from Syracuse University showed 83% of non-detained asylum seekers appeared for court.
For those with legal representation, the appearance rate jumps above 95%.
Failures to appear are often due to logistical issues: lack of notice, address changes, language barriers, or lack of legal aid — not criminal intent.
FACT: Not showing up for a hearing can lead to a removal order, but it’s not the same as a criminal offense under U.S. law — immigration violations are generally civil infractions, not crimes.
Claim 3: “They all… need to be forced back across the border.”
Legally and ethically questionable.
Mass deportations without individual hearings would violate both U.S. law and international refugee conventions.
Asylum seekers are entitled to due process, including a hearing to determine if they face danger in their home country.
FACT: The U.S. is bound by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol — both prohibit refoulement, or returning people to countries where they face serious harm.
Claim 4: “Few, if any, have any loyalty to the US. Few want anything besides to be left alone and to gather what they can…”
Unsupported and speculative.
Many immigrants (including undocumented ones) work in critical industries — agriculture, construction, food service — often under difficult and underpaid conditions.
Data shows high levels of military enlistment, entrepreneurship, and community integration among immigrants over time.
Loyalty or intent cannot be generalized — this is a broad stereotype not supported by evidence.
Claim 5: “They are a net drain on our society… No one has ever been able to back [the claim they aren’t] because it isn’t true.”
False. There is solid, well-documented evidence to the contrary. The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) 2016 report found that:
First-generation immigrants may cost slightly more in education and health initially,
But second generation (their children) contribute more in taxes than native-born Americans on average.
Overall, immigration has a net positive effect on the U.S. economy, especially long-term.
The Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) and Brookings Institution have also published findings showing:
Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans,
Contribute significantly to Social Security and Medicare (even if they never collect),
Start businesses at higher rates than native-born citizens.
Claim 6: “If you really believe… sponsor them.”
Reasonable in tone, but not a rebuttal.
Sponsorship is an individual choice, and not sponsoring someone does not disqualify someone from advocating for systemic fairness or humane policy.
By this logic, one would have to personally adopt every homeless person, support every veteran, or house every refugee to have a legitimate opinion — which isn’t how public policy or civic discourse works.
Well over 80% of the folks “Fleeing persecution” return to their countries for visits. Either they or you are lying. If they can return for a visit yearly or so, then they aren’t afraid of their home country nor in the kind of danger they claim.
“Asylum” is the big buzzword that opens doors for them, so of course they say it.
I’d be interested to see that study from Syracuse. I doubt it really says what you claim.
#4: You fail to address the issue. Dance all you want but they have loyalties to the countries from which the left, not the US nor the laws of this nation.
It was first generation immigrants to which I was referring. Second generation are, in fact, citizens of the US and are (generally) not a part of the culture of the original nation from which their parents came. Again, not germane to the original statement.
Not sure where you are getting your data regarding crime: Crime increases in nearly every southern-border immigrant enclave. If you weren’t a limousine Liberal-type you’d see that, first hand.
So you think then, that it is the responsibility of the US taxpayer to do the “sponsoring” …..Typical Liberal mindset. You want something so the rest of your fellow citizens should shoulder the burden….But you aren’t willing to do so personally.
About the answer I expected.
Again:
Claim 1: “80% of asylum seekers return to their home countries — proving they aren’t in danger.”
That figure is not supported by any known data. In fact:
Asylum seekers who return to their country of persecution can lose their asylum status. U.S. immigration law treats such travel as evidence that the original claim may not be valid.
Most asylees do not return home — it would contradict the very basis of their protection and often put them in danger.
If there is a source for the “80%” claim, I’d genuinely be open to reviewing it. But as of now, no government agency or research body reports such a trend.
Claim 2: “Most asylum seekers skip their court hearings.”
This is incorrect. According to a 2022 report by TRAC Immigration at Syracuse University (based on 2+ million cases):
83% of non-detained immigrants attend all of their immigration court hearings.
When they have legal representation, over 96% show up.
Most no-shows happen due to poor notification systems, not deliberate evasion.
@ TRAC Immigration: Asylum Seekers in Court
Claim 3: “Immigrants don’t have loyalty to the U.S.”
Loyalty is a hard thing to measure, but behavior speaks volumes:
Immigrants — documented and undocumented — work in agriculture, construction, hospitality, elder care, and food services. These are vital roles most citizens don’t take.
Many pay taxes, even without legal status, through ITINs or payroll deductions.
Some serve in the military, volunteer in their communities, and enroll their children in American schools with the goal of a better life.
Loyalty grows over time — and is often earned through the way a country treats its newcomers.
Claim 4: “First-generation immigrants are a net drain on society.”
This is one of the most debated claims — but it’s not accurate across the board. Here’s what the data shows:
The National Academies of Sciences (2016) concluded that first-gen immigrants may cost more initially (mostly due to education costs for their children), but over a lifetime, they and their children more than repay that investment in taxes.
Undocumented immigrants alone paid an estimated $11.7 billion in state and local taxes in 2020.
@ NAS Report Summary
Claim 5: “Crime increases in immigrant communities.”
This is consistently disproven by peer-reviewed research:
Immigrants — both legal and undocumented — are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.
Numerous studies show that cities with higher immigrant populations often have lower rates of violent crime.
@ Cato Institute: Criminal Immigrants in Texas
If crime increases in specific neighborhoods, that’s worth investigating — but it shouldn’t be attributed to immigration without hard data.
Claim 6: “Liberals want taxpayers to shoulder the burden but won’t help themselves.”
Some do help personally — sponsoring refugees, donating to legal defense funds, volunteering through faith groups. But more importantly:
Immigration policy is not charity — it’s a matter of national interest and law.
It’s fair for taxpayers to invest in systems that ensure orderly immigration, fair asylum processing, and humanitarian obligations — just as we invest in public schools, police, and roads we may not all use equally.
You don’t have to sponsor someone personally to care about how a nation treats vulnerable people. That’s what civil society is for — making sure compassion doesn’t depend only on private wallets.
Final Thought:
You raise valid concerns about fairness, order, and responsibility — and those concerns matter. But your rebuttals aren’t grounded in facts, or, you haven’t presented any evidence that supports them. The reality is that immigration is a complex issue that can’t be reduced to stereotypes or anecdotes.
If we’re going to debate policy, let’s do it based on what’s actually happening — not what we fear or assume. I’m more than willing to continue this conversation, but facts have to be the foundation.
SO you make statements as fact, but you do not cite the studies or surveys which demonstrate or validate your statements
But you ask me for a cite for my 80% statement.
Feel free to show actual cites to actual data to back your statements.
And stop conflating first generation illegals to second generation or more, and stop conflating LEGAL immigrants to illegals. Or people granted asylum with people illegally living in the US. It’s cheap and it weakens your argument.
Interesting that you compare costs of immigration (note, again, ILLEGAL immigration to schools, roads, and police…..But those are costs of citizenship, paid for by taxpaying citizens….that benefit the communities, not the costs of illegals which benefit only the illegals and not the communities they invade. It isn’t an “investment” when we pay for the illegals, unlike roads and police.
Are you that uniformed as to the crime statistics of Illegal immigrant enclaves? Or are you simply being intentionally blind? You do not appear, by your conversation here, to be as stupid as that position would suggest…
Not leaving my house.
B ,,for the win.