Abdiaziz Shafii Farah
Mohamed Jama Ismail
Abdimajid Mohamed Nur
Said Shafii Farah
Abdiwahab Maalim Aftin
Mukhtar Mohamed Shariff
Hayat Mohamed Nur
Abdifatah Yusuf
Lul Ahmed
Abdiwelli Muhammad
Mustapha Mohamed
https://www.fox9.com/news/feeding-our-future-who-is-charged-in-the-fraud-scheme
Up here in the people's republic we've had quite a run with some big cases of defrauding the government. Strangely enough, almost all of those charged seem to have one thing in common. Maybe some folks choose the wrong ways to assimilate their culture into US culture.
9 comments:
If all these people are recent immigrants, then deportation is in order, after stiff fines and time in prison. Liquidate as much as possible of their possessions in order to recover what was pilfered, as well as to cover all fines and court costs...THEN kicked their sorry asses out of the country. Do it loudly so as to stand as a warning to others who come here to with bad intent.
I don't disagree. I'm not sure how recent they are.
What I did find interesting is that in the first COVID fraud trial, someone floated the defense that they didn't know any better because this sort of corruption was common in East Africa.
We now have three recent, high profile incidents where the large majority of those charged are East African immigrants and Muslims to some degree.
I guess assimilation isn't the goal for some immigrants.
You sadden me, Craig. I thought you were better than this sort of nationalistic fearmongering. Truly, I did. I actually still do. Don't let the xenophobia of the MAGA conservatives suck you in. I know you to be concerned about people overseas and south of the border, your life and work suggests as much.
Fearmongering of "those foreigners" and/or "those Muslims" is not part of a higher path of grace and love for all. Live up to your best ideals, dear brother. You are created in the image of God to do good works, to ally with and support the least of these. Live up to those ideals, dear man.
And thus I say again, the first priority...the Prime Directive, for you Star Trek fans...is that no one gets in without first some notion of what they can do for the betterment of this nation. So, let's say someone shows up with a sad story. This person isn't so much interested in becoming an American as much as fleeing some danger back home. This person needs to explain convincingly why they couldn't have sought refuge at any of the countries closer to home than us. Assuming they made a convincing argument, this person must then be made to understand his entry is entirely conditional. The first condition is that the moment the danger he fled no longer exists, back he goes. The next is, there can be no breaking of our laws, or back he goes. The third is, while here, he must live as one who demonstrates gratitude for the refuge provided by being as good and productive a guest as can be.
This is very general, of course. But our benefit is always prioritized over anything else.
Now, if this person is here to make a new home for himself, the second and third condition must be followed. In addition, true assimilation must be demonstrated, beginning with learning the language. Also, if this person has no skills, I don't see any reason to allow entry, except on a strict, time-limited work visa of some sort whereby this person can prove himself to be worthy of citizenship at some point, but always with monitoring by some parole officer type official.
This is OUR home. Live by OUR laws and standards, or get the F out.
Dan, oh Dan,
Your inability to think beyond your usual melange of catchphrases and code words is what makes you so amusing.
There's no "xenophobia" or "fearmongering" here. Perhaps you missed the part where I was speaking of these people as specific individuals, not as representatives of a group. I know that your default is to broad brush, but please don't project your defaults onto me.
You are correct that my experiences indicate that I am concerned about people. Strangely enough, that concern is not unlimited. My concern ends when people immigrate to the US and refuse to assimilate, and take advantage of our freedom to engage in large scale criminal activity. I know nuance often escapes you, but in this case to ignore the fact that virtually all of the criminals who've engaged in fraud and murder share a common demographic trait.
Again, I know it's hard for you not to project. But my pointing out that certain, specific, immigrants have chosen not to assimilate is not a blanket accusation about all immigrants. I don't see people primarily as members of groups, but as individuals. One way you could have figured this out is by noticing that I referred to specific individuals by name, and linked to a news story by actual journalists with the names of more individuals. I didn't refer to "those foreigners" or "those Muslims" as you quote me as having done, I referred to specific individuals by name.
Personally, the idea of being an ally to people who've engaged in fraud on a massive scale or murder, seems to run counter to my faith. But you feel free to ally with those who engage in fraud and murder if you'd like.
Art,
I agree that the primary driver of immigration should what is best for the US as a country. I'd argue that assimilation IS what's best for the US as a country.
Yet, I'd also argue that there is a place for mercy. For accepting some number of those who truly are in need of refuge. For example, the Afghans who risked their lives to work with the US military should have been allowed to immigrate to the US regardless because it was the right thing to do. I'm a pretty pragmatic person, yet I understand that simple cold hearted pragmatism isn't always the best option.
As per an earlier discussion/post, I also agree that if the conditions that prompt someone to seek refuge are removed, then they should be repatriated. Refuge should always IMO be thought of a s a temporary solution, not a permanent one. Where I think we've gone off the rails is to simply declare the entire mass of people at the border as "refugees", without any idea of their individual situations. Refuge should always be decided on a case by case basis.
I agree that those who do immigrate here should assimilate, follow our laws, and strive to better themselves and the country.
We're not in conflict in our opinions. My generalized list does not suggest an absence of mercy or compassion for the truly needy, but requires that their "needs" are not simply stories to take advantage of our mercy and compassion. This is clearly being done now, and I oppose it. Some will be caught between the desire for compassion and decision to provide it which should lean toward what's best for our own people first. This is unfortunate, but to risk the well-being of our own so as not to risk the lives of foreigners does not seem the right position for a government tasked with putting its own people first.
We must build that wall, secure the border and funnel all migrants to points where official decisions can be properly made. I want to end any notion that believing the sad stories of the migrant is or should be a default position, and all true seekers of refuge must know it's on them to provide a truthful tale which is persuasive. Some might suggest this is akin to rejecting the notion of innocent until proven guilty. But that's not the case.
I also would like to see that people don't think they can get away with ignoring our sovereignty by crossing at points other than approved ports of entry. All caught doing so must be cast out. We can do so in a manner which simply redirects them to the back of the line. If they are then trying to submit a sad story, that plan will not be seen as a viable option for very long, and real seekers of refuge won't for long be held in suspicion as they justly are now.
My greater point here is to not replace intelligence with emotion. Mercy and compassion cannot be the guiding principle when risk to our own is a great potential, and it's never been as great as it's been proven to be since Jan 20, 2021. There's room for mercy and compassion, but not at the expense of intelligence and security.
Simply put, we can't have people believing they can just walk up to the front door (or any other opening they find) and be welcomed in any way. If we toughen up and enforce existing laws, this will stop...or at least be reduced to a trickle.
Dan broadly brushes in whatever direction he needs to in order to defend his posturing or to disparage better people.
To Dan, all seeking entry to our nation are sad and pathetic suffering innocents fleeing danger and oppression. Of course that's not true.
To Dan, all who seek to secure our border because of the incredible number of law breakers and evil does who ignore our laws and procedures...lured by hopes of amnesty by morons like Joe Biden, as well as the opportunity to exploit our largesse....are hateful xenophobes and racists. Of course, that's also untrue.
Like lefties liars do, Dan promotes this notion of "fear mongering" when trying to address the very real dangers which have led to all manner of harm to American citizens and other illegals as well. They'll lie in any way they have to in order to perpetrate their false narrative and posture as compassionate.
But there's no compassion in millions of unvetted people entering our nation, when the consequence is the harm done to our own people. Evidently, there's an acceptable amount of rape and murder that goes with ensuring these fictional "oppressed" violators of our national sovereignty get a free pass.
We often hear from the left such dishonest stupidity as "if it only saves one life, then we should do it". To secure the border...to funnel all who wish to enter through official ports of entry...to insist that those with sad tales to tell can in some way do more than simply tell sad tales and expect to be allowed in by doing so...this and all other tried and true methods of securing our borders will save more than one life. They'll save tens of thousands of lives at least. Dan's sanctimony is puke and diarrhea.
I didn't thin we were significantly at odds. I agree that we need to control access, vet individuals, and focus on those who add value to the US and those who desire to assimilate. We obviously need to temper compassion with caution and focus on quality not quantity.
Yes, Dan's broad brushing is all about supporting his hunch du jour is. It's about blindly trusting, and not (or minimally) verifying.
Given Dan's fear mongering about the imminent danger of the "extreme right wingers", it's amusing when he accuses us of doing what he regularly does.
The "saves one life" canard is falsified ever time an illegal immigrant rapes, or kills a US citizen.
I suspect that the ultimate goal is to devalue citizenship, and expand the DFL voter base.
Post a Comment