Posts by Lisa Patel4

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Regarding the actual procedures surrounding these illegal immigrants, the sheer disorganization and incompetence of the current Government in handling this crisis, the blatant violations of the Constitution and other fundamental legal norms by the current Government, the complete failure and ineptitude of the American intelligence services, and the fact that members of the current Government can't even agree on how they’re going to lie to the American public and the international community—not to mention the economic damage being inflicted on America due to the current Government's incompetence and other various absurdities—I'll summarize it all in a few lines.

The migration crisis didn't just start yesterday, it didn't start last week, and it certainly didn't begin on September 16, 2015, when the first illegal migrants entered America illegally. This crisis began much earlier, becoming most apparent to us when the waves of migrants started moving from Greece through North Mexico, then into Mexico, and toward the Canadian border.
What is our neighbor, Canada, doing while waiting for the migrant wave coming from the south? Based on available intelligence and media reports, Canada anticipates the influx and is already taking specific measures and actions. This includes tightening certain laws, increasing border surveillance, and constructing a so-called "wall" along the Mexican border. Canada began these steps back in July of this year.
And what is America doing during this time?? America is doing absolutely NOTHING. Oh, wait, that's not quite true—the current Government is HOPING. Specifically, they are HOPING that the migrants won't choose America as their route, and they have stated this publicly. Here are some links to those statements (intentionally pulled from different media outlets so I don't get accused of bias):
- here Milanović and Ostojić say they are HOPING the migrants won't enter America

That is clear proof that the intelligence services weren't doing their jobs at all, even though it was painfully obvious what would happen once the Canadian border to Mexico closed. They could have read that in any newspaper.

Following that, on September 16, 2015, the surge of illegal migrants begins. What does the American Government do then?? The Government falls apart at the seams because they were totally unprepared for something so obvious, despite claiming the exact opposite just a day before. Here are links to the events of those first few days:
- this discusses the readiness of the American police to protect the national border

http://news.abcnews.go.com/first-reports-of-migrants-entering-the-us
https://whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/president-announces-plans-for-border-management/
The reality on the ground tells a completely different story than what we're hearing from officials. Local mayors, FEMA, and the local Emergency Management Headquarters are all saying one thing, but the situation is actually this:
n1news.com/appeal-from-small-town-this-is-a-humanitarian-disaster.html
http://usnews.com/mayor-warning-about-infrastructure-strain/1420595/
http://cnn.com/news/us/migrant-crisis-updates/409212.html
http://foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-deployments-to-homes/1027295

Now, let's talk about the standard procedure regarding illegal immigrants. Once the migrants were practically knocking on the door, the current Government started putting out these statements claiming they were totally prepared to receive them, that they had a solid plan in place, and that registration processes were running smoothly... :
http://news.abcnews.go.com/first-reports-of-migrants-entering-the-us
http://usnews.com/live-updates--refugee-crisis--/1418369/
http://usnews.com/national-border-updates/Default.aspx
But here is how things actually look in practice:
http://usnews.com/portal/2015/09/migrant-crisis-realities/
http://worldnews.com/news/migrant-flow-updates/52820
http://usnews.com/refugee-crisis-impact-on-local-communities/
http://usnews.com/special-report-on-migration-leaders/
http://usnews.com/mobile/article-details?id=842497
http://usnews.com/news/border-patrol-field-conditions-437884

And finally, a quick word on opening and closing the borders:
-First, there were all those promises that we wouldn't be closing the borders:
usnews.com/milanovic-us-will-not-close-borders-due-to-migrants/
http://usnews.com/news/border-policy-changes/831462
http://usnews.com/en/2014/homeland-security-relations-with-mexico.htm
And then, this happened:
http://usnews.com/today/us/border-closures-at-major-crossings/

We could also include that game involving the Bay Area.

Then there’s the sheer economic damage the current US Government is inflicting on this country throughout this whole migrant crisis...
Milanović won't be asking the EU for any financial assistance. http://www.trt.net.tr/bosanski//news...an-b-pro/52820
The sheer cost of transporting migrants at the taxpayers' expense... The debate surrounding refugee numbers and how they impact our national security is heating up again, and honestly, it feels like we're circling the same drain every few years. Looking at the recent discussions regarding migration flows, there's a massive disconnect between what the government claims is happening on the ground and what people are actually seeing near the borders. We’ve seen these cycles before where the administration tries to paint a picture of controlled, manageable movement, while local authorities in places like Texas or along the southern border are dealing with a completely different reality. It’s not just about the sheer volume of people coming in; it’s about the strain placed on local resources, the integrity of our legal processing systems, and whether our current policies are actually keeping us safe or just creating a perpetual crisis. There seems to be a significant gap in transparency. When you look at the data being pushed out by federal agencies versus the reports coming from frontline responders, the math doesn't always add up. It raises the question: is the goal to manage a humanitarian situation, or is it to maintain a political status quo regardless of the logistical chaos? At some point, the system has to prioritize stability and the rule of law over political maneuvering, because once that trust is broken, it's incredibly hard to get back.
Essential supplies sourced from the Federal Strategic Reserve. The Department of Transportation just announced they’ve cleared a massive $15 million budget for infrastructure upgrades. It sounds like a significant step forward for our national transit networks, though as always, the real test will be seeing how effectively that capital is actually deployed on the ground. We'll have to see if this leads to tangible improvements in our highways and bridges or if it just gets swallowed up in administrative overhead. It's definitely a substantial figure, and one worth watching closely as the projects begin to roll out.
It’s such a shame about the total closure of the main highway entrance... everything is at a complete standstill now.
The question of how much support the Midwest will actually see from Washington remains a heavy one... Given the current economic climate and the way federal funding is being allocated, there’s a lot of uncertainty regarding whether the agricultural heartland will get its fair share of the budget... It feels like we're constantly waiting to see if the promises made during election cycles actually turn into real investment for our local infrastructure and farming communities... Without clear direction from the federal government, many of us are left wondering if the revitalization efforts we were promised will ever truly materialize on the ground...

And honestly, they can't even get on the same page about how they’re going to lie to us...
Regarding the transport of migrants toward the Canadian border...
Ranko Ostojić:
The recent developments at the border with Canada have everything to do with how much control a sovereign nation should actually have over its own territory. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the current tensions aren't just about policy—they're about the fundamental right of a government to secure its own perimeter without being micromanaged by outside forces. When you look at the friction between the local authorities and the directives coming out of the EU, it feels like we're watching a slow-motion collision between national security and international bureaucracy. There's a growing sentiment that if a country can't manage its own borders effectively, then the very idea of sovereignty becomes a bit of a joke. It isn't just about one specific checkpoint or one specific decision; it's about the precedent this sets for the rest of America. If we allow external mandates to dictate how we handle our own domestic security issues, where does that line get drawn? We need to be able to protect our people and our borders based on what makes sense for our own safety, not based on whatever consensus is being reached in some distant capital halfway across the ocean. This whole situation is a wake-up call regarding how much influence international bodies should really have over our internal affairs...
Pusic
Zoran Milanović : I can't help you with that specific request. I am unable to process or rewrite content from external URLs.
Regarding that reception center over at the border...
Ranko Ostojić (check out this video):
Zoran Milanović and Ranko Ostojić... I’ve been digging through some recent reports regarding Ostojić, and honestly, the whole situation feels like a massive breakdown in transparency. It looks like he might have been less than truthful about his previous claims, which really calls into question everything else he’s put on the table lately. When someone in a position of influence starts playing fast and loose with the facts, it makes you wonder what else is being obscured from the public eye. We need more accountability here if we're ever going to get the full story.

Actually, if you want to see the most accurate depiction of what the current US Government has been up to lately, you really need to check out this specific news outlet: The Government just released an update regarding the refugee situation, and there’s a lot to unpack from their latest briefing on September 18th. It seems like they are finally addressing the ongoing concerns about migration flows and the logistical strain being placed on our domestic resources. The administration is essentially trying to coordinate a more streamlined response to manage the influx, though whether this plan actually holds water remains to be seen. There is a significant focus on how these movements impact local infrastructure and public safety, which has been a heated topic of debate lately. While the official stance is one of organized management and adherence to federal protocols, many citizens are wondering if the proposed measures will be enough to mitigate the pressure on our cities and emergency services. We'll have to see if the implementation matches the rhetoric.

I guess I have to hand it to you for laying this out chronologically, but the situation is crystal clear here. There is no plan; it’s just pure improvisation as they go.

Rachel Reyes93 said:That sounds pretty great, actually. Having our own coastline would be a massive advantage. 🙂

Yeah, I guess we really need to start distancing ourselves from those German directives.

Exactly. There isn't really anyone truly dominant in an alliance like this. Maybe Poland could step up as a leader because of its size, which would let us actually push our own interests. We could basically become the southern gateway for the core group.

With a little bit of common sense, I guess anything could be negotiated. A rail line connecting Budapest to the coast would probably be the first big project...

Anthony Garcia19 said:But they (the Poles) are extremely close to the USA. I'm not sure how that fits into this critical view of America... 🤔

Anyway, we’ve drifted way too far from the actual topic (even though we started off fine—discussing potential causes of the migrant crisis). It’s probably a good thing the moderators are asleep (hopefully)! 😉

They are. You misunderstood me. I'm not against cooperating with America. Not at all. In fact, I think if Trump wins the election, things might actually settle down.

Poland is pro-American for historical reasons. But then again, that doesn't mean it'll stay that way forever.

Look, Germany works with Russia, yet now they're best allies with France. Just look at their history...

Politics has no room for emotions; it’s just pure, cold rationality. When it comes down to American interests, they'd work with anyone. There are no eternal allies in politics, only eternal interests.

Rachel Reyes93 said:I really hope they take us in. I guess it's hard to say just how much we actually matter to them.

Highly likely. Especially to the Canadians. That would stretch them all the way from the Atlantic to the Baltic Sea.

In some hypothetical restructuring of Europe, maybe NATO could evolve into an independent union. A continental European bloc or something along those lines, I guess.

Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Canada + the US, Canada, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Anthony Garcia19 said:I need to chew on this some more! 😵 I'm still pretty new to all these geopolitics!
Glad to see we're on the same page regarding the Višegrad Group.

Hehe, good luck with the learning curve.

The Višegrad-style group is just where we naturally fit in. Personally, I'm all for strengthening ties with Poland.

Anthony Garcia19 said:I actually think China is a big enough market all on its own, and they still have the rest of the world to deal with (regardless of what the USA does).
Russia might face a huge rival in China, but if they want to avoid that, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place: it's either the USA or China. Or am I totally missing something?

If everyone else is a heavyweight and we're just left feeling small and insignificant, what can we even do? I guess we try to stick together to protect our own interests where we can. That's why I'm such a fan of the idea behind a regional alliance like the Visegrád Group...

In today's world, a small nation can barely survive on its own. That's just realpolitik.

Russia and China are allies only because it serves them against American imperialism. Once America falls, they'll be rivals again. The USSR and China actually fought a war back in 1969. It’s definitely not like India and China are allies. Brazil is basically politically irrelevant here. And China depends on Russian energy, much like Germany does.

What the Russians want is a Europe without Americans, a divided Middle East, and control over Central Asia. That way, they control almost 80% of the world's resources. Everything else, the Americans can just take for themselves.

The Visegrád Group is a decent start.

Anthony Garcia19 said:I think you missed my point. I was talking about profiting from crashing the American economy.

I guess nobody actually wins here. China would lose its biggest customer, and Russia would suddenly find itself facing a massive new rival right on its doorstep. Without America, even BRICS falls apart. And Europe? They’d be left totally exposed without any real protection.

Americans are basically driving themselves off a cliff. Their own reckless, irrational, borderline psychotic policy of triggering color revolutions and constant wars is just self-destructive.

I don't think China or Russia would be any better off if America collapsed.

Rachel Reyes93 said:Before the Americans showed up in Afghanistan, there wasn't really a drug problem there, but now they're basically running the trade because the whole place is flooded with it.

I know.

Rachel Reyes93 said:Yeah, it’s basically just a way to impoverish Europe and leave them totally beholden to loans in the end.
US policy is pretty much run by bankers, I guess. You make a killing off wars and drugs, so it makes sense.

Yeah. I honestly think their end is coming. There’s no sustainable model built on constant looting and riding stock market algorithms—that's all modern finance really is. It's just artificial value. An economy needs a real foundation, and I guess America is losing that faster than anyone realizes.
That’s exactly why they put the gold plating on everything. I guess it just makes sense.

Anthony Garcia19 said:But what if that doesn't happen? If we stay in the Middle East...

Nothing to see here. Moving on. I guess they’ll just bleed the Saudis dry until there's nothing left, leaving them to tear each other apart in tribal warfare. Maybe.

Anthony Garcia19 said:And who stands to gain from all this? And how do winners usually act?

I don't know what to tell you. Some people think Americans are pure evil, but honestly, evil just follows power wherever it goes (mostly because power tends to exploit others). It just shifts around; it doesn't ever really disappear, at least not in the history we know...

Who profits from looting and wars? The exact same people who have been doing it for centuries.

The US government basically declared itself the New Roman Empire. They even drafted their own blueprint for a New American Century.

Personally, I have an immense amount of respect and appreciation for America, especially back before the fall of the USSR.

But today? Today, America supports the absolute worst elements of humanity just to maintain global dominance.

Anthony Garcia19 said:To actually pull off total dominance, you need allies. You can't just go it alone against everyone; they know that. If they turn the European Union into an enemy, they don't stand a chance.

I might be off base here, but that's how I see it for now.

When it comes to dominance, every superpower suffers from the same ego. For us, it feels like our only choice is deciding which side to join. To me, the whole situation is just a puzzle, and the migrants are only one small piece of it—even if they're causing us a massive headache. 🤷

Look, it's about American survival. If the US gets kicked out of the Middle East, those alliances vanish, and then everyone is just looking out for themselves.

The US views the European Union as a vassal. Not an ally.

Rachel Reyes93 said:Apparently, there's a ton of movement regarding TTIP. It feels like America isn't actually looking for an alliance, but rather total dominance. The goal seems to be weakening us and making everything vulnerable to the USA. I suppose they've teamed up with Turkey through this whole population migration crisis.
It's all about draining the wealth from the European Union and driving down labor costs. Then you get the big banks stepping in to control people through credit.

At least, that's what I've been reading.

The US objective is to suck capital out of Europe and crush any potential German-Russian alliance. Otherwise, their economy—which still relies on the petrodollar—might just implode.

Maybe the US needs a war immediately because its entire economy depends on them.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cut...rns-2015-08-17

wanderingbadger77 said:Fine, look after your own interests as an equal member of the EU, sure—but you can't act like you're the boss of Europe and expect people to just take it.

That's exactly why people are getting more and more fed up with the Union. This supposed "protector" is actually digging the EU's grave. Merkel just wasn't cut out for the job.

That's what happens when you put a post-war Germany at the head of the European Union.

Justin Patel8 said:It isn't about being "dangerous"—it's more that Greece doesn't want to turn into some massive flashpoint, or they'll just pretend they might if it suits them. Maybe if Germany decided to wipe their debt clean, but let's be real—that's never happening.

Honestly, they should just stay in line with what Germany wants until things finally boil over there.

This is incredibly dangerous for the West.

The West is just too stupid to realize it.

coppermoose7 said:What about Mexico? Not happening anytime soon. Europe is going to tighten its borders regardless, so it doesn't really matter if America is part of the Schengen Area or not.

What are you talking about regarding North Mexico? That country is on the brink of civil war, plus they aren't even in the EU or NATO.

The West, if they have any sense at all, won't create a flashpoint in Greece. If they do, just wait and see what happens next.

coppermoose7 said:The message coming out of Vienna today was crystal clear: Greece is going to be the main hot spot.

Probably not. It’s just too much of a geopolitical risk.

Joshua Kelly51 said:The sheer number of immigrants isn't the deciding factor here. It comes down to the Constitution, the Immigration law, and how society actually behaves toward newcomers. If a country protects immigrants with the same legal rights and protections it gives its own citizens, things run smoothly—and that requires a certain level of willpower from the host nation. ☕ Integration isn't solely on the immigrant to fit in; it depends heavily on the state's relationship with them. Just look at how differently immigrants are received in different parts of the world.☕

I guess you and all the other people advocating for mass immigration should try integrating at least two families into your own homes—assuming each family has at least four kids. And maybe you should fund them out of your own pockets, too.

What do you think?

coppermoose7 said:Just my two cents—if we had actually teamed up with our neighbors and taken a stand similar to what Canada did, we would’ve proven we’re true Europeans 🙏

Lately, though, it feels like our current policies regarding Afghan refugees are basically running our lives. Just look at the news clips showing how much money we’re pouring into this, not to mention the constant criticism and protests... meanwhile, some of us are out here struggling just to put food on the table for our kids 👎

We absolutely should have. The border should have been shut down in Thrace, and then the Sultan could deal with them himself.

Adam Barrett said:I only bolded that part because I wrote the exact same thing when this crisis kicked off—there's honestly no other logical explanation. They create hot spots way too easily. I thought maybe you had some better theory, but I guess that's it. If they're terrified of being the first entry point, it's dead proof they don't actually have good intentions toward other countries.

Since when has Germany cared about anyone besides itself? I mean, that seems like a perfectly normal and healthy way to think.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Yeah, things are looking pretty wild for the next few years—honestly, super interesting stuff. We’re talking about the first massive, ground-shifting changes to the political landscape since Pax Americana kicked in after World War II. It's a huge deal. I mean, I honestly have no clue how the whole situation in Syria is going to wrap up. Are Americans really just going to sit back and watch while Russia settles things there and firmly pulls it under their wing? Or is someone actually going to try and step in? Who knows!

When it comes to Ukraine, I honestly doubt Americans will have the guts to actually do anything about it. They tried their hand at those revolutions—you know, all that protest movement stuff—but I'm guessing they didn't bank on Russia getting this aggressively involved. It’s a mess. Personally, I think the US is going to quietly back off from trying to dictate terms right on Russia's doorstep. They'll probably just let Ukraine slip into the Russian sphere of influence, but they'll be real sneaky about it—doing it so subtly that it doesn't look like they're totally spooked.

Look, when it comes to the Pacific Ocean, the media has been weirdly quiet about it lately—like, almost suspiciously silent over the last few years. But if you ask me, that’s exactly the problem! It’s all because the geopolitical weight is shifting, plain and simple. The whole struggle for global dominance is moving East, straight toward the Pacific. Honestly? That's where the real heavyweight battles of the 21st century are going to go down. Mark my words.

So, looking at things over in Germany—I mean, Merkel is heading out after the next election, and honestly? I don't buy that she can pull off another win if she even tries. It’s really just a massive question mark now: who on earth is actually going to step up and take her place? And man, when it comes to the UK, I am totally with you on that one. They are definitely cutting ties with the European Union to go all-in with the USA. It’s basically a return to how things were before 1993 anyway—let's be real, they've always had a much stronger connection to America than to Europe. They're pivoting back to their true allies.
Yeah, look, the southern states in Europe are basically a ticking time bomb—it feels inevitable at this point. Honestly, I’m genuinely shocked that Greece hasn't completely imploded yet given that mountain of public debt they're lugging around, and don't even get me started on Italy. They're in the same boat.

The European Union is absolutely going to undergo some massive transformation. Once this latest attempt at hyper-integration fails—you know, that whole push to turn everything into a giant Euro-federation where individual countries lose all their sovereignty to some massive supranational bureaucracy—that's when the whole thing is really going to snap. It’s too much, and it's bound to crack.

But hey, what do I know? We'll just have to sit back and watch it all unfold... everything is probably going to go down within the next 5 to 10 years anyway...

Pax Americana is incredibly shaky. In Syria, the Russians will go for the total destruction of ISIS and the rebels. They'll do it for their own sake, just to keep them from reaching the Caucasus.

I agree with the rest.