Snowden steadily running out of options for asylum

posted at 5:31 pm on July 5, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Edward Snowden’s options for asylum are getting fewer and farther between as more and more countries express their disinclination for acquiescing his requests for a safe haven. He’s currently supposed to be in transit area in the Moscow airport hiding from U.S. espionage charges and looking for a way out — but he can go ahead and take Iceland off of the list, reports Reuters:

A bid by Edward Snowden for Icelandic citizenship failed when the country’s parliament voted not to debate it before the summer recess, lawmakers said on Friday, with options for the U.S. fugitive narrowing by the day. …

Following the news in Iceland, WikiLeaks announced that Snowden had applied to another six countries for asylum, adding to a list of more than a dozen countries which he has already asked for protection.

The anti-secrecy organization, which has been supporting Snowden’s efforts to find a safe haven since his exit from Hong Kong 12 days ago, said on Twitter it could not reveal the names the countries due to “attempted U.S. interference”.

And go ahead and count France and Italy out, just for good measure:

Italy and France both rejected on Thursday the requests for asylum from fugitive US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden.

Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said Thursday that Italy could not accept an asylum request from the former US intelligence analyst because there were no legal or political conditions to do so. …

“Like many countries, France received a request for asylum from Mr. Edward Snowden through its embassy in Moscow. Given the legal analysis and the situation of the interested party, France will not agree,” the interior ministry said in a statement.

Which stinks for him, because Russia — although Putin has refused to extradite Snowden — is reportedly getting a little impatient about his extended stay. Meanwhile, Politico points out that what the wanted man claimed were his worst fears are looking an awful lot like reality. Welcome to Edward Snowden’s nightmare?

Snowden’s worst fear, by his own account, was that “nothing will change.” …

One month after The Guardian’s first story, which revealed an order from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing the National Security Agency to collect the phone records of every Verizon customer, there has been no public movement in Washington to stop the court from issuing another such order. Congress has no intelligence reform bill that would rein in the phone tracking, or Internet monitoring, or cyberattack planning, or any of the other secret government workings that Snowden’s disclosures have revealed.

… Far from having been surprised by Snowden’s disclosures, today’s intelligence committee leaders stepped right up to defend the NSA’s surveillance programs. From Republicans, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, to Democrats, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, they’ve been nearly unanimous in their support.

“I feel I have an obligation to do everything I can to keep this country safe,” Feinstein told The New York Times. “So put that in your pipe and smoke it.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Except that I’m not. I used those examples to point out that we can build coalitions with people in the center

Moving towards the center.

to bring conservative principles forward incrementally.

Progressive.

Sorry, but your words are quite clear. You may say you mean something different, but then you’ve got to be able to articulate it in a way that doesn’t explicitly state “we have to cater to the center and move our principles ‘forward’”.

However, I reject the notion that we can “send them home.” The solution, however much it violates our sense of the rule of law, will contain a compromise that allows those already here to stay. There is no credible alternative.

Again, we differ on what is “reasonable”, or, per your synonym, “credible”. Deportation is neither unreasonable nor lacking in historical precedent. This link is shortened because of the name of the topic would trigger the stupid, hypersensitive, pathetic filter used by Hot Air.

The only place you’ve mentioned so far where we part ways is the NSA surveillance on American citizens. I guess I would ask you this — given our porous borders and the relative ease by which a terrorist can enter the US, what do you propose we do to stop them if we are NOT performing domestic surveillance? Is there any level of domestic surveillance you support? Where is your practical (not ivory tower) line?

RationalIcthus on July 6, 2013 at 3:59 AM

First, we lock down those borders. I am not stating this bluntly because I believe such a concept would be easy. It would not. We’d have to, as a society, ignore the cries of racism or ignorance of human suffering…and frankly, that’ll never happen. But that’s what I support doing. Build a wall, use moats or mines if necessary, and eliminate as much illegal entry into our country as possible. You want a surveillance state? Put cameras all along the wall so we always know what’s happening.

Secondly, we end the War in Afghanistan. It’s a complete failure, it’s being fought by cowards in suits, and we’ve done enough to the Afghani people(most of whom, I believe, still hate the Taliban more than they hate us). We have utterly failed to meet our objectives, and it’s time to call it a day and come home.

Third, we dismantle the DHS and allow certain parts of it to be absorbed by the FBI, DOD, and other existing departments. The DHS so far has primarily accomplished the subjugation of our citizens through massive civil rights violations at airports, issuance of directives that label political movements as potential terrorist organizations or peoples, and militarizing local law enforcement to the point that they consider themselves well above the law. Good grief, are you seriously telling me the terrorists haven’t achieved their goals when disorderly conduct can now be considered an act of terror?

When people like Schadenfreude and myself talk about the terrorists having won, we specifically mean that they have forced us into allowing our government to treat us like subjects to be monitored and strictly punished for so much as raising our voices. They have used our panic and irrational fear to impose an infrastructure designed to quash any and all dissent under the guise of protecting us from Islamist jihad.

Jihad is still a danger. It always will be. It has been for decades, but we didn’t take it too seriously. In my opinion, Reagan knew best how to handle it. Bomb bomb bomb, then sit back and have a cocktail and treasure the rights we maintain, but they do not. No more occupations. No more decade-long “democracy spreading” campaigns. If they hit us, we hit back twice as hard, and walk away. In retrospect, I wish we’d simply found the best lead to Bin Laden’s cave and nuked it. Show them that we are Allah, and we’re not happy with their bulls**t.

Our only chance of defeating the quest to rebuild the Islamic Caliphate is if we, as a society, can maintain identities strong enough to challenge the holy warriors of Islam. We cannot do that if we are constantly feeling watched, critiqued, and targeted by our leaders. Self-determination needs to be restored to the American people in order for us to rally. Honestly, I think if Obama spent the next year dismantling the DHS and the Patriot Act, there are a lot of people who would give him credit for that. We don’t really care about politics anymore. We care about what being an American citizen means, in terms of freedom. Say what you want about Edward Snowden, but he has shown us that being an American citizen is no longer the grand membership to a shining city on a hill.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Generally speaking, I usually agree with your posts and line of thinking, but this particular posts doesn’t make sense to me at all.

Not one bit. It’s full of contradictory information and conjecture.

We’re not “near anarchy”. We’re closer to a police state than ever before. The opposite of anarchy.

You then complain about Obama not following the Constitution, the rule of law, but yet think anyone that says Snowden should be held via rule of law is unpatriotic. That doesn’t even make sense, so inconsistent. Rule of law is only applicable if agreeing with your viewpoints?

Snowden might be considered a “patriot” if we were in a war and the battlelines were drawn. But we’re not in a war. And anyone that wants to wax poetic about being in a war against liberalism, blah, blah, blah is disconnected from reality.

What Snowden did was a true act of espionage. Fighting liberalism within the means of our First Amendment right is nothing like that.

ButterflyDragon on July 6, 2013 at 6:36 AM

I wish you luck on your attempt to have an adult debate here – I expect it to completely backfire on you, hopefully I’m wrong!

When dealing with people like madisonconservative, Schadenfreude, and VorDaj on this topic, it’s good to keep in mind that they are the equivalent of crazed religious zealots, who immediately bristle & then insult and mischaracterize in defense of Snowden. And of course, they’ll deny this about themselves while continuing to insult and mischaracterize! They are like children who cannot control themselves…

As I said, I wish you luck! :)

Anti-Control on July 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM

teabag retard

MelonCollie on July 6, 2013 at 11:49 AM

lol

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 12:04 PM

crazed religious zealots

…insult and mischaracterize!

They are like children…

Anti-Control on July 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM

*sigh*

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 12:08 PM

*sigh*

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Do you believe you could you give me a reason why I should believe that you carry yourself as maturely as posters like ButterflyDragon and RationalIcthus? I’ll tell you that you are living in a fantasy world if you think you can, but feel free to try to prove me wrong anyway!

Judging by your obnoxious & intolerant behavior over disagreeing thoughts about Snowden, I say that you are unnecessarily & excessively rude moron. So, why a *sigh* over an honest assessment of you – because I don’t share the same high opinion of yourself that you do? It’s not the fault of people like me that people like you have shown yourselves to be a pathetic & immature debaters over Snowden…

I find trolls like you to be obliviously stupid the way leftard trolls are. People like me don’t avoid discussions with you snarling & humorless idiots because of fear of your (illusory) intellectual prowess, we avoid them with you for the same reason we’d avoid debating patients in John Hopkins’ psych ward – you apparently are too far gone to understand this, which is why it shouldn’t surprise you that I expect you to snarl & insult as a response to this!

Anti-Control on July 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Except that I’m not. I used those examples to point out that we can build coalitions with people in the center
Moving towards the center.

to bring conservative principles forward incrementally.
Progressive.

When you call me progressive, you imply that I’m attempting to move the needle leftward. How does that line up with my assertion that I want to move us incrementally to the right?

If I’m driving to California from New York, I have to move west to reach your destination. Just because I’m driving at 10 MPH instead of 75 doesn’t mean I’m traveling east.

If by calling me progressive you mean to imply that I’ve accepted the reality that I can’t move us a mile to the right in one fell swoop, and that we’ll have to do this in steps, then I accept your charge, but object to your choice of words. I don’t mind being charged with living in the real world. I just wish you could use the right word. It’s realist.

Sorry, but your words are quite clear. You may say you mean something different, but then you’ve got to be able to articulate it in a way that doesn’t explicitly state “we have to cater to the center and move our principles ‘forward’”.

When I was a child, I could stamp my feet and demand that the world cater to your desires. It was my rules for the game of freeze tag, or I was going home. As I grew up however, I learned that playing freeze tag by myself was an exercise in frustration.

In the real world, politics isn’t a conservative-only debate. We might wish it were so, but it just doesn’t work that way. How do you propose that we move the country rightward when the Senate is controlled by leftists?

I’m not suggesting that we compromise core principles, but I am suggesting that we have to deal with reality.

However, I reject the notion that we can “send them home.” The solution, however much it violates our sense of the rule of law, will contain a compromise that allows those already here to stay. There is no credible alternative.

Again, we differ on what is “reasonable”, or, per your synonym, “credible”. Deportation is neither unreasonable nor lacking in historical precedent. This link is shortened because of the name of the topic would trigger the stupid, hypersensitive, pathetic filter used by Hot Air.

So as proof that we can deport 13 million people, you reference a program from the fifties where (1) we held a status in the world much more respected than we do today, (2) the Mexican government was cooperating with us rather than having their entire economy dependent on illegal immigration, and (3) your article demonstrates that the program completely failed — American companies still actively imported illegal labor despite our efforts.

Now let’s deal with reality. Mexico will not accept 12-20 million immigrant refugees back into their crippled economy. Fully 30%-40% of Mexican GDP is made up of payments from immigrants in the US back to Mexico. Remove that source, and Mexico collapses overnight into an anarchist narco state. So let’s say we decide to send them home. I fully believe that Mexico will simply seal their border. Do you propose going to war to force these illegals back home?

Try again.

The only place you’ve mentioned so far where we part ways is the NSA surveillance on American citizens. I guess I would ask you this — given our porous borders and the relative ease by which a terrorist can enter the US, what do you propose we do to stop them if we are NOT performing domestic surveillance? Is there any level of domestic surveillance you support? Where is your practical (not ivory tower) line?

RationalIcthus on July 6, 2013 at 3:59 AM
First, we lock down those borders. I am not stating this bluntly because I believe such a concept would be easy. It would not. We’d have to, as a society, ignore the cries of racism or ignorance of human suffering…and frankly, that’ll never happen. But that’s what I support doing. Build a wall, use moats or mines if necessary, and eliminate as much illegal entry into our country as possible. You want a surveillance state? Put cameras all along the wall so we always know what’s happening.

As I’ve stated, we have to start by securing the border first. We agree here, what’s your point?

Secondly, we end the War in Afghanistan. It’s a complete failure, it’s being fought by cowards in suits, and we’ve done enough to the Afghani people(most of whom, I believe, still hate the Taliban more than they hate us). We have utterly failed to meet our objectives, and it’s time to call it a day and come home.

Agreed.

Third, we dismantle the DHS and allow certain parts of it to be absorbed by the FBI, DOD, and other existing departments. The DHS so far has primarily accomplished the subjugation of our citizens through massive civil rights violations at airports, issuance of directives that label political movements as potential terrorist organizations or peoples, and militarizing local law enforcement to the point that they consider themselves well above the law. Good grief, are you seriously telling me the terrorists haven’t achieved their goals when disorderly conduct can now be considered an act of terror?

I actually think I agree with you.

When people like Schadenfreude and myself talk about the terrorists having won, we specifically mean that they have forced us into allowing our government to treat us like subjects to be monitored and strictly punished for so much as raising our voices. They have used our panic and irrational fear to impose an infrastructure designed to quash any and all dissent under the guise of protecting us from Islamist jihad.

Jihad is still a danger. It always will be. It has been for decades, but we didn’t take it too seriously. In my opinion, Reagan knew best how to handle it. Bomb bomb bomb, then sit back and have a cocktail and treasure the rights we maintain, but they do not. No more occupations. No more decade-long “democracy spreading” campaigns. If they hit us, we hit back twice as hard, and walk away. In retrospect, I wish we’d simply found the best lead to Bin Laden’s cave and nuked it. Show them that we are Allah, and we’re not happy with their bulls**t.

Our only chance of defeating the quest to rebuild the Islamic Caliphate is if we, as a society, can maintain identities strong enough to challenge the holy warriors of Islam. We cannot do that if we are constantly feeling watched, critiqued, and targeted by our leaders. Self-determination needs to be restored to the American people in order for us to rally. Honestly, I think if Obama spent the next year dismantling the DHS and the Patriot Act, there are a lot of people who would give him credit for that. We don’t really care about politics anymore. We care about what being an American citizen means, in terms of freedom. Say what you want about Edward Snowden, but he has shown us that being an American citizen is no longer the grand membership to a shining city on a hill.

I agree with your point that the American people deserve (and should demand) liberty. But I think the practical, day-to-day issues of liberty and freedom have changed. China can reach out pretty much any time it wants and probe your or I. That also means that they can electronically recruit within the United States.

The issue is larger than just blasting Mecca into glass. In an age when the Internet has dissolved borders, it’s naive to think that our enemies aren’t operating on our soil. The old notion that the CIA only needs to look outward, and that the NSA only needs to look inward is an anachronism.

We can secure the border (although I’m not sure how you’ll get the Dems to come on board given your inability to compromise), but it still doesn’t solve the problem. How do you propose to protect us from internal threats without some level of surveillance occurring within the United States.

Further, I’d like to swing the conversation back around to my original point. Given how much we agree — and that’s not to minimize our areas of disagreement — why would we not pair up against the left as brothers instead of slamming each other up against the wall with charges of leftism and centrism? We agree much more than we disagree.

RationalIcthus on July 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM

…obnoxious & intolerant behavior

…unnecessarily & excessively rude moron.

…pathetic & immature…

…trolls like you to be obliviously stupid…

…snarling & humorless idiots…

…I expect you to snarl & insult as a response to this!

Anti-Control on July 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM

All because of a sigh.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Supporting what Obama and his N-Stasi-A are doing, violating the Bill of Rights, is the end justifies the means belief, so you do subscribe to “Ends justify the means” thinking, so by your own admission you are a liberal.

VorDaj on July 5, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Try again…no where in my post will you find any support for Obama or the NSA domestic spying. I stated that while Snowden’s initial actions may have been right, they were done the wrong (read: illegal) way and his later actions and admissions have exposed him as a spy & traitor.

If you want to go “Egypt” on Obama, I won’t stop you and that may indeed where it eventually may go but until then, I cling to my faith that some kind of lawful, Constitutional salvation may still happen, though that hope is dwindling.

It is the domestic use of a Department of Defense activity to essentially spy on American citizens inside the borders of the United States that rankles, truly creams my corn…and this is where my “sympathy” for Snowden sits…I lose sympathy for Snowden as more and more “legitimate” foreign eavesdropping is revealed.

Had Snowden quit while he was ahead, he’d not have tied this Gordian Knot around himself.

coldwarrior on July 5, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Precisely.

Rogue on July 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

If by calling me progressive you mean to imply that I’ve accepted the reality that I can’t move us a mile to the right in one fell swoop, and that we’ll have to do this in steps, then I accept your charge, but object to your choice of words. I don’t mind being charged with living in the real world. I just wish you could use the right word. It’s realist.

If you’re going to start claiming realism, don’t claim that baby steps have gotten us very far. The left and the right now both call us racist for demanding border enforcement, and they sell the leftist lies to us, knowing full well that they’ll never be delivered. The left and right now both say that journalists should be prosecuted for reporting on the existence of government agencies. The left and the right now both suggest we arm and finance Al Qaeda-connected Islamist barbarians in Syria. Every time we attempt to take a baby step, the Left yanks the right three leaps backwards. We are not playing softball. We are playing against an ideology that is in the midst of being uncovered as a fraud, and they’re not going down without taking conservatism down with it. People like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, those “wacko bird extremists” are going to be the people who keep conservatism from being diluted to the point of irrelevance. We have to be willing to accept the extremist label because they proudly wear theirs, and they’re not afraid to push for concepts like socialized medicine and gun bans.

In the real world, politics isn’t a conservative-only debate.

Again, in the real world, the Obama administration considers American politics an our-way-or-the-highway debate. Did the IRS scandal not tip you off to that? Or Attack Watch? This isn’t the 50s, and we’re not dealing with New Deal Democrats. We’re dealing with the dying breed of 60s ultra-leftists.

So as proof that we can deport 13 million people, you reference a program from the fifties where (1) we held a status in the world much more respected than we do today, (2) the Mexican government was cooperating with us rather than having their entire economy dependent on illegal immigration, and (3) your article demonstrates that the program completely failed — American companies still actively imported illegal labor despite our efforts.

1. So world’s opinion comes before our laws regarding immigration? Sorry, but I’m not a global citizen, and I don’t give a damn what Mexico or anyone else thinks. We should deport illegal aliens, regardless of source country, and we should do it on a regular basis. Actual enforcement over several years could do wonders for the issue, but you rule it out over what the world might think of us. That’s really rather silly. We pay the world to like us and it ain’t working.
2. Let’s see Mexico refuse to accept its citizens back. I’d really like to see those headlines.
3. Of course they will. Your characterization is little different of a straw man than that used by gun control advocates who say that legalizing concealed carry won’t eliminate gun deaths. There is no total solution to the problem, and nobody is talking about one. The program DID, on the other hand, deport hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens a year. That kind of enforcement hasn’t been tried in decades, and not in conjunction with programs like e-Verify.

Now let’s deal with reality.

You’re using “reality” to the point of condescension, particularly while advocating for moving to the center while the last two centrist candidates for the presidency have gone down in flames, with Rand Paul one of the most talked about contenders right now.

I fully believe that Mexico will simply seal their border.

It would shatter NAFTA to pieces. You’re quite mistaken.

Do you propose going to war to force these illegals back home?

Won’t be necessary because they’ll never risk our trade relationship over the illegals. They’ll sooner relocate them in Juarez and hope that the cartels take them out.

As I’ve stated, we have to start by securing the border first. We agree here, what’s your point?

We have few to no politicians willing to demand this, as we’ve seen. Hence, the border will not be sealed with the current crop. They have to be removed. Electing more centrist Republicans will only put the same problem back into the system.

I agree with your point that the American people deserve (and should demand) liberty. But I think the practical, day-to-day issues of liberty and freedom have changed. China can reach out pretty much any time it wants and probe your or I. That also means that they can electronically recruit within the United States.

The issue is larger than just blasting Mecca into glass. In an age when the Internet has dissolved borders, it’s naive to think that our enemies aren’t operating on our soil. The old notion that the CIA only needs to look outward, and that the NSA only needs to look inward is an anachronism.

So can Russia and other countries. How many more threats can we come up with to justify relinquishing our liberties? We’ve got nations, terror groups, climate change, mass shooters, people buying drugs with bitcoins and kids wearing NRA shirts to school. People manage to find reasons to explore the power of governance to show just how far it reaches…over…and over…and over. It’s not shrinking. It only expands.

We can secure the border (although I’m not sure how you’ll get the Dems to come on board given your inability to compromise), but it still doesn’t solve the problem.

Give up trying to work with the Dems, work on trying to work with the citizenry. You are still stuck in the two-party mindset, while over in England UKIP, who barely existed on the political scene a decade ago, just grabbed a quarter of the vote, almost edging out Labour and giving the Tories heartburn. If self-determined Brits can do it, we sure as hell can turn the Tea Party into something greater.

How do you propose to protect us from internal threats without some level of surveillance occurring within the United States.

I don’t propose to have no surveillance. I propose to allow a transparent and carefully monitored government the ability to use the powers of law enforcement within the limits of the Constitution. You keep buying their claims that “it’s not enough!” I don’t. This is where, I believe, we part.

Further, I’d like to swing the conversation back around to my original point. Given how much we agree — and that’s not to minimize our areas of disagreement — why would we not pair up against the left as brothers instead of slamming each other up against the wall with charges of leftism and centrism? We agree much more than we disagree.

RationalIcthus on July 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Yes, we do. However, you seem to think that the people trying to talk you into compromise give a s**t about what we agree upon. The David Frums and Brookes of the world will continue to bend over until they’ve made their critics happy. They really don’t care about their principles…they just don’t want to be disliked. The values that the left want us to compromise on require us to become as superficial as they. Our values are based on actual work we want to achieve to reform our infrastructure and make it work better for American citizens. Their values on based on avoiding work so that systems decay, and eventually they appeal to the misery of the people in order to eliminate political opposition. You give credit to the politicians. I do not. Our agreement will only matter once we have reached consensus on the effectiveness of government as it stands. If nothing can be achieved, what good is our like-mindedness?

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

All because of a sigh.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I don’t respect you as a mature, likable, nor intellectually honest person, so there is no point in further discussion between us, is there?

You can have the last word if you like, which will be some sort of self-serving insult, I predict! :)

Anti-Control on July 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

You give credit to the politicians. I do not. Our agreement will only matter once we have reached consensus on the effectiveness of government as it stands. If nothing can be achieved, what good is our like-mindedness?

Trust me, other than Cruz, Rand and a handful of others, I don’t trust the current crop of elected officials at all. And frankly, I’m kinda jaded and figure it’s only a matter of time & campaign donations before Paul & Cruz go the same way.

I mentioned earlier in these comments (to someone else) that I think the best kind of politics is the kind where you go out and try to persuade others to see just how conservative their views are, and to persuade them gently to our side. We (you and I) agree that the right course of action is to replace our elected officials with real conservatives and to practice small-game politics in our neighborhoods and communities. That’s the only way we’re going to move ourselves forward.

In order to do that, we’re going to have to work with where we are however, and that’s my primary point. I get that there’s not a lot (if any) room for compromise with Obama and the Dems. But I think there’s reasonable coalition-building to be had by working with the neocons and other centrist groups. Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio — you can call them sellouts if you like — but we can leverage their popularity to move the conservative movement forward, while we’re working to change our communities and neighborhoods.

You mention the UKIP, but they actually prove my point. UKIP has risen as far it has because it has centralized around opposition to the EU, an issue that bridges left, center and right; especially now that the EU economy has collapsed. There are issues that we can leverage similarly — opposition to Obamacare is one, for example.

RationalIcthus on July 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

It would shatter NAFTA to pieces. You’re quite mistaken.

Won’t be necessary because they’ll never risk our trade relationship over the illegals. They’ll sooner relocate them in Juarez and hope that the cartels take them out.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

The Mexican economy is in shambles. Nearly 45% of Mexicans live below the poverty line. The drug cartels run the country. Immigrants sending money home make up over 3% of Mexico’s GDP. The Mexican government is actively encouraging illegal immigration.

What do you think they would do to 12-15 million new people? Your solution is to let the cartel’s deal with them? Forget politics. You’re a monster.

The fact of the matter is that you can’t effectively relocate 12 million people without tearing Mexico apart.

When I said Mexico would seal their border, I meant that they would refuse to accept the deportees, not that they would stop transit across the border entirely. NAFTA has nothing to do with this.

RationalIcthus on July 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM

I don’t respect you as a mature, likable, nor intellectually honest person, so there is no point in further discussion between us, is there?

Anti-Control on July 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

You tell me.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM

What do you think they would do to 12-15 million new people? Your solution is to let the cartel’s deal with them? Forget politics. You’re a monster.

RationalIcthus on July 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM

And you are irrational, quite contradicting your name. I did not say it was my solution. I suggested that the Mexican government would come up with that solution. You should improve your reading comprehension.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 3:53 PM

You mention the UKIP, but they actually prove my point. UKIP has risen as far it has because it has centralized around opposition to the EU, an issue that bridges left, center and right; especially now that the EU economy has collapsed. There are issues that we can leverage similarly — opposition to Obamacare is one, for example.

RationalIcthus on July 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Except that euroskepticism over the last several years has been characterized by the media and most politicians as an extremist viewpoint. It was only after UKIP made waves in the polls that people like David Cameron walked back their despicable comments(which included calling eurosceptics racist…sound familiar?)

People went with a view that was considered extremist, racist, and anti-immigrant(if you knew the debate over the Romanian gypsy minority over in London right now you’d see direct parallels), and they managed to take a party from obscurity to third place, and in British politics, third place is huge. The citing of UKIP directly contradicts your “appeal to the other side” crap that has been pushed on us for election after election with no results. Our last big electoral victory was when the Tea Party said “F**k the center, we’re running our people”. It worked, even if it turned out that many of those people were turncoats. Hell, maybe even the Tea Party can’t save us. Maybe we are that far gone.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Our last big electoral victory was when the Tea Party said “F**k the center, we’re running our people”. It worked, even if it turned out that many of those people were turncoats. Hell, maybe even the Tea Party can’t save us. Maybe we are that far gone.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM

The TP looks to have been a flash in the pan. Lot of fire and smoke and sizzle but not that much steak.

MelonCollie on July 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM

And I say that with some regret because without them there’s not really any mass movement.

MelonCollie on July 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM

The question is who exactly is the traitor here? The Whistle-blower? Or the NSA doing their best Stasi imitation on the citizenry?

How many more asterisk elections will it take for you “death penalty for traitors” types?

PoliTech on July 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM

The so-called “whistleblower”.

I hope he brought along his Spanish dictionary. He’s going to need it — for the rest of his life.

unclesmrgol on July 7, 2013 at 11:59 PM

Which stinks for him, because Russia — although Putin has refused to extradite Snowden — is reportedly getting a little impatient about his extended stay.

Putin to Snowden: Vile you are vaiting in zees airport, ve vant to ask you some kvestions about vut you know. My friends Ivan and Igor are Olympic veight-lifters, and have vays of making you talk…

The longer Snowden stays in Russia, the more Putin knows!!!

Steve Z on July 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM

How many more asterisk elections will it take for you “death penalty for traitors” types?

PoliTech on July 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Stow it, skippy. Try running something besides washed up middle-aged white RINOS and you MIGHT have a case for complaining that liberals are beating you like a gong.

The longer Snowden stays in Russia, the more Putin knows!!!

Steve Z on July 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Exactly. So-dammed is not tough in any sense of the word. “Interrogation” consisting of one of Putin’s lowest-level thugs giving him the hairy eyeball would have him singing his secrets like a canary.

MelonCollie on July 9, 2013 at 12:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3