Smart people with initiative want to leave their old countries and to come to the US. fortunately america doesn’t want them so they will have to stay home and make their old countries more competitive.
I know you know better. For the operating frame of reference, the relevant discussion is illegal aliens versus lawful immigration. The immigration imperatives of effectively governed countries is to reduce illegal immigration and attract those who will integrate and benefit the host country. The United States has a long history and is still among the top destinations for emigrants. In fact, now that the United States is being more selective on who will be allowed in, may increase its attractiveness. The policies of the Left, from open borders, DEI, CRT, soft on crime but lawfare on political opponents, transgender elitism, censorship, and supportive of corruption have increasingly been alienating voters, including lawful immigrants, many of whom have high regard for family values. The modern Left has evolved from espousing Communist and Socialist ideals to even worse with their sexual identity crisis. It is like the Left wants to turn the United States into Russia, but without the few "good" qualities that Russia has. Notably, Russia has not ever, at least in the last hundred years, had an illegal immigration problem of those from the West. Think of it as a type voting with feet. Forth dimensional thinking may consider the policies of the Left as self regulating in that if they make the United States toxic enough, destroy economic opportunities, illegal immigration will disappear automatically. Brilliant. Not. Pretty good signs a political party has become toxic is when it can generally control the narrative, gain and outspend political opponents by a factor of four to one, obtain an large majority of endorsements of popular celebrities and even factions within the opposing political party and still lose an critical election by a significant margin to a candidate with a lot of baggage. Talk about the ineffective allocation of resources... In another words, the majority of voters are tired of Leftist shit. This is not just in the United States, either, as evidenced by election results in several prominent countries over the last couple of years. Perhaps instead of trying to reframe things into an narrative in order to push an counterproductive ideology upon US Citizens, how about focusing on helping people achieve what they need without unfairly taking from someone else? By taking, I mean whether it concerns money, educating children, how counterproductive members of society are handled, rule of law, heritage, and property rights from the productive, most of whom are considered working class.
Finally, the blackmarket selling of US weapons by Ukraine is being investigated by the Trump administration. Good too that aid to Ukraine has been placed on hold. All the crooks need to be charged including Ukraine officials and US monies seized and brought back into US coffers.
dude, I’m not reframing anything. Rhetoric matters. And the distinction of legal vs illegal doesn’t mean much when a brown person is told carry your passport around everywhere you go (even if you are a legal US citizen). You think guys at IIT feel welcome by that?
It's interesting commentary I think small business is much more prevalent in Russia than in western countries what is more difficult in Russia is to grow from small to middle and almost impossible to large as country is controlled by oligarchy. Ukraine was basically the same. Yes there is quite a bit of corruption in everyday life but people adjust But I have to say you - people with initiative still doing better in Russia on balance and usually don't immigrate. Immigration is mostly for low middle class or upper high class. And just fraction of 1 % immigrate every year
I have observed a significant proportion of new immigrants into the US are seemingly driven to perform well and often outperforming complacent citizens who have been here since birth. One of the challenges Russians face in the US is lack of trust. I see this in trucking along with others, including, honestly speaking, myself. This lack of trust stems from repeated disappointments involving promises or obligations not being met by Russians. It is to the point where if I hear a Russian accent on the phone, I cringe and don't do business with them. I respect Russians as being smart, having strong situational awareness in many areas, and having other positive aspects to their characters. I and others just don't want to do business with them because broken promises ruin the deal and viability of a potential business relationship. I suspect Ukrainians are facing the same challenges, even if they are honest, simply because of that Russian sounding accent. Solutions may involve resources being available within Russia, say through the internet, and a related "citizenship class" upon arrival within the United States to help Russians integrate better and achieve success more reliably.
One of the obligations of citizens is to carry ID. Whether born within a country or not. I carry ID in my wallet, including driver's license, passport card, and social security card. I have my passport in my truck. I have not been offended when asked for proof of residence for a Texas Driver's license when I moved there. Maybe IT guys feel different. However, said obligations still apply to them. Besides, how hard is it to carry around ID? Even when jogging, for example? Or Brown?
not in America. You aren’t required to carry papers to walk down the street or buy a newspaper. Are you from the Soviet Union or rural China or saddam hussein’s iraq? conservatives hate communism but they actually love Communism.
This is a catastrophic misunderstanding of fundamental principles. In British, Irish, American, Canadian, NZ and similar traditions, there is not only no requirement for citizens to carry ID, but there is an active insistence that they must not as a core principle. During WWII, ID cards were issued in Britain as a necessity, but they were abolished shortly after the war precisely because they were seen as an unacceptable infringement on individual freedoms. This principle is deeply rooted in the belief that the state should not have the power to demand identification from free individuals at will. Don’t tie yourself in knots over this. When operating a machine that requires a minimum level of competence because it could endanger others, a license, not an ID, is needed. Similarly, a passport (literally a 'pass-port') is not truly an ID in the strict sense; it’s an authorization to cross international borders if mutually recognised. The obligation to carry ID is a feature of more centralized systems, often tied to states with a history of authoritarian control or greater bureaucratic oversight. In contrast, countries like ours uphold the idea that personal liberty and privacy are paramount, with the burden of proof resting on the state, not the individual. To misunderstand this is to misunderstand one of the key safeguards against tyranny. The Napoleonic continental approach assumes that the state is an active participant in shaping and protecting society, requiring systems like mandatory ID to facilitate its role. The British model, however, sees the state as a servant of the people, with strict limits on its power to interfere in the lives of individuals. This difference is not a trivial one, it reflects a fundamental safeguard against a state that could overreach its authority and treat citizens as subjects who must justify their existence. As an example, my wife, being Colombian, was fascinated when touring Ireland and we encountered a police stop on a road near a ferry terminal with the UK. She assumed I would need to present identification, as is common in her country. However, the Irish police, having quickly established that we hadn’t come off the ferry and therefore had no reasonable suspicion we’d been drinking, didn’t even ask for my driver’s license. This demonstrates a core principle of the British system: authorities must have reasonable cause to interfere with someone going about their business. Lacking such cause, they didn’t impose on my freedom by requesting ID unnecessarily. Don’t let what may seem like subtle differences be eroded under the guise of convenience. It is critically important that citizens understand why one system has successfully resisted falling into tyranny, while the more 'convenient' Napoleonic systems historically did little else until significant reforms were made post WWII.