U.S. Plans To Welcome 100,000 Fleeing Ukrainians
Officials must ensure that America's lethargic refugee processing and lengthy family-based visa backlogs can effectively handle the people they seek to help.

The United States plans to accept up to 100,000 Ukrainians fleeing their war-torn country, the Biden administration announced today. The Russian invasion has forced some 10 million civilians to leave their homes, and around 3.5 million have settled in other countries just one month into the conflict.
Biden officials had previously indicated that the administration would accept fleeing Ukrainians, though it has been unclear which immigration pathways it would utilize. "To meet this commitment, we are considering the full range of legal pathways to the United States," said an administration official.
Not all Ukrainians accepted to the U.S. will technically be refugees. Under U.S. immigration law, refugees are a class of migrants who must apply from outside the U.S. and demonstrate persecution or fear of persecution based on one of several criteria. Refugees may also file for permanent residency one year after their arrival in the U.S. Administration officials have indicated that they would use the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to accept Ukrainians, but precise details on that plan are unclear as of now.
Temporary pathways and family-based visas will bolster refugee admissions. Reuters reported on Tuesday that new immigration efforts would "speed up visa processing for relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents and detail more staff to handle applications for a temporary status known as 'humanitarian parole.'"
This announcement follows a series of modest measures the Biden administration has put in place to protect Ukrainians. The Department of Homeland Security designated Ukraine for temporary protected status in early March, preventing the deportation of Ukrainian nationals to Ukraine and allowing them to obtain employment authorization for the next 18 months. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also suspended deportation flights to Ukraine, Russia, and seven other nations in the region.
"By opening our country to these individuals, we will help relieve some of the pressure on the European host countries that are currently shouldering so much of the responsibility," said a Biden official. Now, the Biden administration will need to ensure that America's lethargic refugee processing and lengthy family-based visa application backlogs can effectively handle the people it seeks to help.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is, what, the 6th or 7th time Fiona has written this column?
See if you can really earn those Koch bucks by hitting double digits before the end of March. 🙂
#WarIsGoodBecauseItCreatesRefugees
#CheapLaborAboveAll
So is Harrigan walking around high-fiving the rest of the Reason staff today?
The staff will be severely disappointed that we're not taking in all the displaced Nigerian sex workers.
Agreed, we should be open to all cummers. ♥♥♥
Plans? Not at all relevant. All they have to do is cross at the Mexican border. There are no limits there.
I'm here to show those import-studs all the tricks I can do. 😉
Cum join me, OBL. ♥♥♥
#MySouthernBordersAreAlwaysHot
#ButUnfortunatelyAlsoVeryDry
How many of them will be literal Nazis?
Ugh. Stop spewing Russian disinformation.
The contemporary definition of "Nazi" is "anyone in the United States who opposes Reason.com benefactor Charles Koch's open borders agenda."
Instead of Russian disinformation, I wish we could all just start spewing our genetic information indiscriminately. ♥♥♥
#OpenThemNow
#ILoveItWhenThingsAreGoingSouth
Not enough, I’m afraid.
When they start voting (R).
US plans - - - - -
Like the shipments of weapons still on the ground in the US?
Like a certain supreme court justice "plans" to recuse?
Why? Isn't all of Western Europe a lot closer?
Yeah, but they have other fish to fry right now.
Yeah, but as long as we pay for their defense we should also have to pay for the refugees from adjoining wars.
Oh, when I read 'pathways' I thought like, how they'd actually get here.
Aeroplanes would be my guess, but ships would work too.
That's gonna be a funny look. Western Europeans hustling Ukrainian refugees out of their country.
I'm imagining a similar article in say, Le Monde: France has pledged to take in 100,000 Refugees from South America and Mexico
Then an accompanying picture of US immigration officials herding hundreds of immigrants from Mexico and Venezuela onto airplanes destined for Paris.
If I were a Central American refugee seeking asylum in the US, I would be pretty pissed about all these Ukrainians getting in ahead of me.
At least until I got my ticket to France.
Of the 100000 "Ukrainians" 30000 will be Syrian, 20000 will be libian, and 40000 more will be other north african
And they'll all be men
Once again, Hypocrisy Harrigan refuses to tell us how many of those refugees she'll be putting in her guest bedroom.
I have a just a small place. But I will take one.
LOL
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1507056593338343442?t=gIjoPsta-AVzecIhHkgw6Q&s=19
Biden just slipped and implied he might be going to the Ukrainian border
That press conference was great! Only answered seven reporters questions, six already picked ahead of time, including the reporter from Der Spiegel (sp?) who asked him what should be done to make sure Nazi Trump, or someone just as evil, doesn’t win in 2024.
I'm sure he won't spy on his potential opponents and use the FBI to dig up dirt on them. That would be the biggest political scandal ever.
Freeze his bank accounts, too. Just to be sure.
I think they're hoping he gets whacked so we can get the full on war going
Would we go to war, or give someone a medal?
Oh, wait, Kamala.
War it is, then.
She’d be a super wartime president.
*cackles*
https://twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1507056821298737166?t=lK8FXSVlivUR-rpDYDbRHA&s=19
It takes an insane amount of chutzpah for this degenerate, senile and corrupt oaf to slander his fellow countrymen as Nazis while he’s cheering and arming real-life Azov Nazis in Ukraine. Disgusting scumbag.
There’s no foreign enemy he hates more than Americans who vote Republican. The feeling is now mutual, asshole.
[Video]
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/03/24/biden-linked-company-partnered-with-ukraine-biolabs/
"The revelation surrounding President Joe Biden’s son’s financial involvement with Ukrainian biological laboratories experimenting with pathogens, animals, and anthrax follows The National Pulse unearthing Metabiota’s ties to EcoHealth Alliance, a key entity in the origins of COVID-19 and cover-up efforts."
Brilliant plan by Democrats: first, cause a war in Ukraine, then admit hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into the country.
Former CEO of Goldman-Sachs:
https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/status/1506778618353041410?t=7gq-GUDk1Vvtpp4jo6zNgg&s=19
I’m not a military guy, but if Ukraine is able to strike a proper target inside Russia, should it? Wouldn’t be meaningful strategically, but could be a major morale boost, like the Doolittle raid against Tokyo in 1942, which brought that war home to Japan and boosted US morale.
What's wrong with that? Russia attacked Ukraine, should Russia be off limits to Ukrainian military reprisals? The Doolittle raid actually had major strategic outcomes that benefitted the US, not least of those was approving the invasion plans for Midway, where we destroyed their offensive naval abilities. It also forced Japan to spend money on home defense, especially Air defenses, which made our consequent island hopping strategy and submarine warfare much more effective. To say the Doolittle raid didn't accomplish much strategically is a complete myopic misunderstanding of history.
"Should" in what sense? Moral? Legal? Tactically? Strategically?
What are the military and political objectives of such a strike?
Political and strategic, bringing the war home to Russian citizens. The reason we took so long to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan was because it didn't impact most Americans, outside families of service members. We may have had very few attacks on the American homeland, but everyone felt the war during world war 2. A nation can easily wage war if it's citizens, the vast majority of them, don't have to experience any hardships of their own.
Seriously? You think Putin is just going to say "aw-shucks, the peasants are unhappy, I better stop this"? That's absurd.
If the Ukraine attacks Russia, Putin is going to escalate massively. Even conventionally, he can level Ukraine completely from the air. And a regime change in Russia is just as bleak a prospect.
You haven't thought this through.
It isn't without risks, but doing nothing isn't without risks. Nothing is stopping Putin now from waging a costly war, using low technology and piling up civilian casualties in Ukraine.
I'm not saying if it would or wouldn't be in Ukraine's best interest but it would be justified.
I don't know of anyone arguing that attacking the territory of forces attacking you isn't justified, the question is if it's possible and/or makes sense.
As for what's best for Ukraine, that's easy: agree to Russia's terms and stop getting Ukrainians killed for the evil plans of globalist oligarchs.
Is that in Ukraine's best interest? I think that's debatable. It's certainly in Russia's but Ukraine may be better served by resisting and improving their bargaining power.
And by "Ukraine" you mean who exactly? The Ukrainian state? The average Ukrainian citizen? And bargaining power for what exactly? To hang on to Donbas and Crimea? To avoid having to make a commitment not to join NATO, something that NATO won't do anyway?
The displacement of millions and deaths of tens of thousands could have been avoided by simply giving Putin what he wanted: a commitment not to join NATO, Crimea, and Donbas. Is avoiding this worth the price millions of Ukrainians are paying?
Who displaced those people? Oh yeah the fucking Russians. They fled Russian invasion because they didn't want to be under Russia's thumbs.
Now do Donetsk and Luhansk.
They've been getting shelled for 8 years, had multiple ceasefires broken, 14,000 killed... no consideration for them?
Unlike people living in the rest of Ukraine, the territory at issue is where they live.
Ukrainians' lives aren't affected by recognizing those territories' independence.
Let's say Ukraine wins- Russia retreats and Ukraine goes back to war on the Donbas and cutting off Crimea's water.
What do Ukrainians gain?
What does life for Ukrainians look like after victory?
And what do Ukrainians lose if Russia wins via peace deal? Via conquest?
What does life for Ukrainians look like after peace? After conquest?
How many lives are worth sacrificing for the difference in life after victory vs life after peace, assuming there's even a difference?
Yeah poor Russia they had to invade a sovereign country. They are just poor misunderstood. Fuck you are asinine with that shit. Yeah if Ukraine wins they get to continue living the way they want. If they lose, they have to live by the way Russia allows them too. It's not even fucking hard if you took Putin's dick out of your mouth for a moment. I thought Ken was being ridiculous but you've gone off the fucking deep end with your excusing Russia invading a sovereign nation to change the way that nation wanted to live. You make every excuse under the stars to absolve Russia of the sin of invading a sovereign country and lay all the blame on Ukraine. Fuck it's old and stupid. I'm done I'm just done with trying to hold anything resembling a intelligent conversation with you on this. You won't assign any culpability to Russia, you want to blame their aggression completely on Ukraine. I'm sorry, Ukraine didn't invade, Russia invaded. The territory they are shelling is because those territories were in revolt and being armed by Russia, who orchestrated the revolt. We may have helped in a coup, Russia instigated an armed revolt. Just stop. It's old and tired and frankly not even realistic, your take on the situation. Russia is the aggressor here, period. They are the ones using force to force another sovereign country to bow to their will. There is no further discussion. I'm through. Your BDS and hatred of the left has blinded you to reality. You are as bad about it as Sqrly and ChemJeff and Dipshit are about Trump. I originally agreed with some of your takes but you've just gone off the fucking deep end with blame Ukraine and excuse Russia.
You're overcome with emotion, soldiermedic.
Doesn't make a compelling case.
You've gone full neoconlib npc.
Never go full neoconlib npc.
"I originally agreed with some of your takes"
Funny, because my takes haven't changed. They might be worded more strongly, but my position is the same now as it was in February.
"I'm done I'm just done with trying to hold anything resembling a intelligent conversation with you on this."
Your post makes that quite clear.
The depth of your thought is "sin of invading a sovereign nation" and saying I have Putin's dick in my mouth.
No offense, but that argument is being made by every Ukraine bot on TV and the internet, so it's not very interesting.
I'm willing to overlook your personal attacks if you ever come back to your senses and can get past your calvinist tautology though.
No, they fled because there is a war taking place, with explosions and all sorts of other unpleasantness.
They likely wouldn't have fled if Ukraine simply had given in to Russian demands from the start.
Not comparing the two, as equivalent mind you, but it was in the Continental Congress best interest, in 1776, after the fall of New York, to take Lord Howell's deal, if you looked at their chance of winning the war, vs the cost in resources, casualties and personal danger to themselves (Howell was authorized and did offer them amnesty from treason and Sedition charges). All they had to do was return to being under British rule with no parliamentary representation. They felt self rule was more important. Ukraine would rather not be forced under Russian power again. That's their rights. No matter any excuse about NATO, EU, past coups etc, the fact is that at this point the Ukrainian people, outside a couple provinces don't want to be allied with Russia or under their influence. So, it's not in their best interest to cave to Russian demands. The longer this lasts, the more power they have to negotiate a treaty that benefits them, but also the more chance that they lose it all. But since ending the war on Russian terms would also basically mean losing it all or most of it, there is little incentive for them not to continue the war. Maybe Ukraine is a shitty corrupt government, the same as Russia, that doesn't really matter, because they have two choices, capitulation or continue fighting, the second at least offers the possibility of them achieving some of their goals, the former doesn't.
What are they holding out for?
I'd like to know, because nothing media, politicians, and Ukrainians themselves have said is actually on the table, at least not officially according to all available evidence.
It looks like they're holding out to avoid strawman fantasies.
They're holding out for not caving to Russian demands, whatever else might be said about them. They didn't invade Russia to exert their will but Russia did invade to exert their will.
So millions are displaced and tends of thousands are dying just so that a corrupt Ukrainian government can say "we didn't cave" and so that the arbitrary borders of a former Soviet republic are preserved?
Of course, the real reason the West is "supporting Ukraine" is that the war is in the interest of the West: it weakens Russia, it increases weapons exports and defense spending, it may provide a justification for expanding NATO, and it provides an excuse for moving millions of people around.
The fact that Ukrainians and Russians are dying in this pointless conflict... well, why would Westerners give a f*ck.
More are fighting than have fled. Russia invaded period.
"Russia invaded period."
So you're willing to die for that?
Not you as a hypothetical Ukrainian, but you the real you.
Because that's the road your thinking leads us down.
You don't think that Ukraine joining NATO is an existential threat. Whether your assessment of NATO is idealistic or accurate isn't pertinent, so we can leave that debate aside, what matters is that Russia and Putin (not to mention all foreign policy pros from 1992-2014+...) do think Ukraine's current relationship w/NATO is an imminent, existential threat.
Do you really think this is "a war of choice" (one of our delightful newspeak phrases)?
Ukraine passed a constitutional amendment in 2019 seeking NATO membership as legally binding policy. So if Russia doesn't invade now, where do you see the situation in 5 years?
Should Russia simply do nothing and wait to (inevitably) be destroyed?
Should Putin step down and defer to whatever Yeltsinesque puppet the globalists choose to lead Russia?
Switching focus... where will the US be in 5 years?
If you see someone coming to destroy you and your family, are you obligated to do nothing, hoping for the best while they increase their capacity to act against you, until they physically assault you?
Of course, by then, it's already too late.
Is it morally unacceptable to do whatever you deem you have to do to preserve yours and your family's lives?
Yes, and the Russian invasion could have been easily prevented by Ukraine and the West taking Putin's concerns seriously and finding a compromise. Instead, the West told Putin to go f*ck himself, and Putin responded by invading.
"What's wrong with that?"
Reality.
"Russia attacked Ukraine, should Russia be off limits to Ukrainian military reprisals?"
They do not have the capability, so probably not wise to attempt.
Again, that makes absolutely no political or military sense. If one side experiences all the pain of war and the other side none, their is no incentive for the other side to stop the war.
Which units are going on the expedition to Russia? How are these apparently uncommitted, previously unknown fighting units going to get there?
There is a land border, getting partisans or special forces infiltrated across those large borders isn't impossible or even extremely difficult. As they speak a similar language, and most Ukrainians speak some Russian it makes it even easier.
And this isn't a pipe dream, Ukraine is already running missions like this inside occupied parts of Ukraine, right on the Russian border.
Same guy:
https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/status/1507072804646236168?t=noBHBaNVt_X91w3Oy5EdxA&s=19
Worth noting even Hitler didn’t permit his military to use chemical weapons, though he had them.
Again it isn't factually wrong. Nazi Germany had the most advanced and largest stockpile of chemical weapons and didn't use them in combat.
And this is precisely why Russia will fight tooth and nail to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
So the US could invade Mexico if we didn't like how they governed themselves?
What was the Cuban missile crisis but this scenario backwards 40 years ago?
As to attacking Mexico, I didn't know they were looking into a defense agreement with China and from there potentially planning on having Chinese troops deployed + missiles ostensibly aimed at the US.
We based ICBMs in Ukraine? When? Fuck that is a stupid, ahistorical analogy. And we actually have invaded Mexico multiple times for less, and weren't right to do so then either. Fuck, learn some fucking history. We also invaded Iraq and weren't right to do so then either. No we shouldn't go to war over Ukraine but we also shouldn't fucking blame Ukraine for Russia invading them either. Both are fucking stupid takes.
I don't blame Ukraine for Russia invading them, I blame their government who: unconstitutionally overthrew the elected government in 2014, initiated hostilities toward Russia, incorporated neonazi extremist militias into their military (and turned a blind eye to their atrocities), went to war on Donetsk and Luhansk, welcomed NATO "advisors" into Ukraine, broke multiple ceasefires, added the intention to officially join NATO into their constitution, threatened to acquire nuclear weapons, cut off water to Crimea, and refused to reconsider any of these actions.
I don't blame Ukraine, I blame Cheney, Bush, Obama, Biden, and Merkel: they screwed up diplomacy big time.
Also, how about Finland, they've been unofficially allied with the west since the early part of the cold war, were only briefly part of Russia before gaining independence, have no language or cultural ties with Russia, except extremely distantly in the past. Their economy is much more closely tied to Western Europe than Russia. They now want to join NATO, something they've talked about doing and been invited to do since the 1950s but they always elected not to, and remain neutral. Russia has threatened to invade them too if they join NATO. So, should we also forgive Russia if they invade Finland for talking about joining NATO and buying military equipment from the west and training with western militaries? Will it also be Finland's fault if Russia invades them, because Russia shares a border with them? Maybe Russia can invade Norway too, for being part of NATO from it's inception because Russia shares a border with Russia as well. And once they are conquered Sweden will share a border. I mean we share a border with them too, it's only a couple miles between Alaska and Siberia, maybe they can tell us what we can do too. And invade us if we don't listen. It's all good because of shared borders. Fuck I'm tired of this pro-Russian bullshit. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, they can do whatever the fuck they want to do, rather I agree with it or not, invading them and forcing your will on them is never warranted. I'm fucking sick of hearing otherwise. You and Nardz are fucking jokes and play right into the fucking leftist narratives with that shit.
I'm tired of simplistic moral righteousness, selectively applied, and simping for globalist goals.
Whether you like it or not, Russia losing is bad for all of us.
But hey, who says globalist government by the people who hate you and deny your rights can't be a good thing?
I mean, so what if they've lied more and pushed even more propaganda about Ukraine and Russia than they did about covid and the vaccines!
After all, I'm sure they have good intentions...
What American interest is served by letting Finland join NATO? What do American taxpayers gain from the additional risks and obligations that entails?
If Finland is admitted NATO despite Russia's warnings, then that war has been provoked by NATO. That's not a moral statement, it's a simple cause-and-effect statement.
There is nothing "pro-Russian" about making the simple observation that one should take a psychopathic dictator with a vast nuclear arsenal at his word and not provoke him.
I'm tired of idiotic war mongers and globalists like you causing one conflict after another, killing American boys, and costing the taxpayer trillions, for no discernible benefit to Americans.
As for capabilities, the US really didn't have them in 1942, so we made use of what we could and launched the Doolittle raid, which had little tactical impact but huge strategic impact because it destroyed Japans myth of invulnerability. A single MiG-29 dropping bombs on a target in St Petersburg or Moscow would remind the Russians they were in a war, even if it didn't do much damage.
If Ukraine still has jets capable of doing that, why are they begging NATO for more jets?
Russia has had air superiority since day 2 or 3.
No, Russia hasn't had air superiority. Ukraine continues to fly combat missions, and maintains a good portion of the air force. Russia has more aircraft but hasn't committed enough to achieve air superiority. They could have air superiority if they wanted it, but haven't done what is necessary to achieve it for whatever reason. If they had air superiority they wouldn't be relying on artillery for reducing Ukrainian cities. Air power could do it cheaper with fewer casualties. Using artillery in this manner is just inefficient and costly in manpower and time.
As for the calls for aircraft, a lot of that is for propaganda purposes. They didn't start calling for aircraft until western elites started proposing it. It's like the stupid no fly zone, they didn't start asking for one until our stupid talking heads started proposing it. A no fly zone would do nothing because Russia isn't flying many air missions, while having a huge risk factor for the enforcer.
Yes, and what do you think the Russian response would be? Russia can level a dozen large cities in Ukraine without breaking a sweat.
They're leveling those cities already. Just using artillery which takes time and is far less accurate. Is Ukraine justified in attacking Russian targets? Or is it on them to keep the conflict limited?
So, just think a step further. Why do you think Russia is using artillery rather than massive conventional bombing runs? Come on, you can figure it out!
Another route they could go, is a special operation in western Russia aimed at disrupting the Russian already shaky logistics. Blow a few bridges, ambush a convoy or two, much less risk than bombing Moscow, and a much larger military impact. Hit fuel convoys with some RPGs and mines, would have large payoffs. It would require Russia to commit troops to convoy protection behind their own lines, while also disrupting supply to forward units. A 12 man squad could wreak a lot of damage in a short time, and they're expendable. You could have a couple operating. And I know they have that capability because they've been training with US special forces for years now.
Yes, you can do all that. And what's going to happen then?
And that is one of the reasons Russia is so pissed off and felt their back was against the wall.
Oh boo hoo, Russia didn't like what a sovereign nation was doing in its own country, that completely absolves them of the sin of invading a sovereign country and enforcing their will literally at bayonet point. It doesn't matter what Ukraine did or didn't do. It's their own fucking country. Russia invaded, to enforce Russian wishes at bayonet point. It's no more forgivable than what we did in Iraq. There wouldn't be any civilian casualties or displaced people, or the millions more who have stayed and fought instead, if Russia hadn't invaded. At the end of the day, Ukraine didn't invade Russia, the US didn't invade Russia. Russia decided to start this war in their own. Period.
You do remember what Kennedy did in 1962 when Kruschev installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, don't you?
The only reason Kennedy didn't invade Cuba was the Russians backed down. NATO still hasn't.
I don't say I approve of what Russia is doing, but no American has any fucking business moralizing about the evil Russians. We've done the same thing many, many times. See "Monroe Doctrine, 1823".
No, we didn't place ICBMs in Ukraine. And your understanding of the Cuban missile crisis is completely wrong. And blaming us for Russia invading is just fucking peacenik stupidity. Study the fucking Cuban missile crisis better. Kennedy actually backed down and withdrew nuclear missiles from Turkey, and then the Soviets agreed to withdraw missiles from Cuba. You don't even fucking understand your own analogy. Fuck, the history isn't even hard to find. Kennedy used the Monroe doctrine, but it wasn't even close to being about the Monroe doctrine. It was about nuclear gamesmanship and playing chicken with the Soviets. And what exactly should NATO do, in your opinion on backing down? Allow Russia veto power over any sovereign country who voluntarily joins NATO? Or the EU? Should we kick out members because Russia says so? They share a border with Norway who was a founding member, should we kick out Norway if Russia says to?
Maybe we should just ignore Russia invading a sovereign nation to enforce their will. And when they invade Moldova we can ignore that as well, maybe add Bosnia-Herzogovnia and Finland and Sweden to that list. Russia shouldn't dictate to us any more than we should dictate to Russia. Russia invaded a sovereign fucking country to enforce it's will. Period. That isn't even close to the Cuban Missile crisis.
Do you idiots have an email chain where you discuss ahistorical talking points? Fuck, I almost agreed with Nardz and NYOB2 at the start, but their arguments are so hysterical and unrealistic as it's gone along that I can't even anymore. Your arguments aren't logical, they aren't historically correct and they ignore basic facts, such as Russia invaded a sovereign country to impose their will. That is wrong no matter who does it. They didn't even do as the Israelis did in the Six Days War, which was launch a pre-emptive war on purely defensive means, because Ukraine wasn't building up to launch a war like the Arab League was doing in 1967.
Sorry, but your post is just laughably ignorant.
You ignored the US invading Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
Maybe it's just because you equate America with US government, but becoming extremely emotional isn't helping your argument.
And what is really laughable is thinking US government and the Davos cabal have any moral superiority when they're currently attacking their own citizens, that's you and me and most everyone here, and destroying our lives.
Sovereignty is such a wonderful thing, but only when it's convenient for the UN I guess.
Fuck Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk! Fuck western taxpayers!
Globohomo, fuck yea!
"Russia has to lie back and hope for the best until nukes are parked on their border"
"Study the fucking Cuban missile crisis better. Kennedy actually backed down and withdrew nuclear missiles from Turkey, and then the Soviets agreed to withdraw missiles from Cuba."
You mean there was a diplomatic resolution?
Outrageous!
The Cuba can have nukes if they want, they're a sovereign nation. The USSR can give nukes to whoever they want, they're sovereign nations.
Yes, that is exactly what the US should do. Russia invading nations halfway around the globe is none of our business.
Europe has more people and a bigger economy than the US; Russia and attacks on European nations are their problem, not ours.
Putin is a psychopathic dictator with a nuclear arsenal at his finger tips who has been clear about what he was going to do. He doesn't care about your absolution. In fact, for the purposes of analyzing the morality of the various actors, Putin is as irrelevant as a rabid dog because psychopaths lack moral agency.
There also wouldn't have been any casualties or displaced people if the West had simply acknowledged that Putin is a psychopathic dictator and acted accordingly.
Remember the before times?
I miss them.
https://twitter.com/ampol_moment/status/1506681418109399041?t=w32vJaClt9adPTZaiyYJ1w&s=19
President Trump posing with over 300 personally bought room temperature burgers for the Clemson Tigers during the government shutdown. (2019)
[Pic]
What if the Ukranians don't want to come to the US? What if they'd rather flee temporarily to a nearby country like Poland? Do we just send Poland a trillion or so dollars to help them cover expenses?
Easy. We force them.
https://twitter.com/morphonios/status/1507081231950913548?t=g6n7F3Aqa6CE0u7_QTVHMQ&s=19
Extremist idealolgy spreads like a virus. The best time to defeat it is when it is in its early stages. The websites of Azov Nazis, Right Sector ultra nationalists and other fascist Ukrainian groups all talk about their goals of spreading their movements betond Ukraine.
Despite endemic fascism in Ukraine, it is rising elsewhere. There are vibrant fascist movements in Poland, Russia, parts of Europe & even in the USA. Meanwhile, other extremist ideologies are growing: Marxism, Wahhabism, Zionism, etc. Each group defends its own extremism.
Zionism and Fascism. You may want to speak to a professional and get on some meds because you've gone around the bend now. You also are using the same talking points as the Democrats, by saying fascism is growing in the US. Fascists are not growing in the US, unless we count the left as Fascist (which they are kind of). Man, you have just lost touch with reality lately. And you don't even have Ken to blame as he hasn't posted in weeks. You just have decided to fully go in on the blame Ukraine and excuse Russia boat. You actually made some really good points initially but you've just lost it now.
I just reposted a tweet.
It makes a case that I partially agree with, but is quite relevant to the topic of taking refugees.
Make of it what you will.
Overall, my points haven't changed one fucking bit. Like Russia's demands, my argument is the exact same now as it was last week and on Day 1 and before that.
"The Gang Declares War on Putin"
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1507035699593232394?t=JM4vGEd-mrzluhWYiPxPIg&s=19
What I am about to tell you is not a joke:
The Philadelphia City Council spent this morning debating a resolution to urge the White House to establish a no fly zone over Ukraine.
Philly set records for violent crime in 2021, and the city council is busy debating foreign policy.
Philly also set records for the number of carjackings.
Oh yes, and there's Kensington Ave. a nice upscale place.
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1507080618609414154?t=m4N490sXF5HUZQYVNDIb_Q&s=19
These were the questions @CeciliaVega of ABC News asked Biden today at the NATO summit. Pretty much just lobbying outright for WWIII. Naturally, Cecilia is one of the psychos that gets bestowed Official Press Accreditation as a Serious Journalist
[Link]
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-issues-full-statement-laying-out-defense-readiness-against-russia-calls-out-china
Just fly them to Ciudad Juarez or Ensenada and have them walk to the border crossings. Much less hassle, since they actually are afraid for their lives in their home country and should be able to just surge right across.
Bump that number to 500k and we can actually say we're doing something. Europe is absorbing millions of these good people, we can handle a half million.
You are welcome to adopt any Ukrainian kid or sponsor any Ukrainian adult with a "golden visa" for a $900k investment and/or assuming financial responsibility for them.
Go right ahead: libertarianism means individual action and individual responsibility.
But stop virtue signaling with other people's money.
I'm sure when you posted this you were thinking of the ones you'd put up in your place and the hundreds or thousands that would take up residence in your neighborhood.
https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1507085455019294745?t=RA1_2GFLAK7l79wPXk_Ivg&s=19
This is an explosive interview between @danwootton and Sky News & ITV former executive Mark Sherman, who admits that the UK government effectively ordered the media to propagandize the public about lockdowns, to promote covid panic, & deplatform dissenting voices.
[Link]
Pretty much the same thing here in the U.S.
The technocrats were perfectly in line with the little toddler tyrants in Washington and the state capitols.
This is the kind of social suicidal ideology that made me stop my subscription to Reason magazine.
Paratroopers?
And FoxNews described this one as a "battleship"...
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1506913810321395717?t=yxtJBdGJQwWoEH1e4hknqg&s=19
Deputy Defense Minister of #Ukraine Anna Malyar said that the destroyed warship in #Berdyansk could carry up to 20 tanks, 45 armored personnel carriers and 400 paratroopers.
Ok, Reason doesn't like this link address, so you have to go through the tweet (or look up thegrayzone website)
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1507091707967459339?t=QLDydTkwCu6FYaMy69vzqw&s=19
Shadowy UK intel figure Hamish de Bretton-Gordon was at the forefront of chemical weapons deceptions in Syria. Now in Ukraine, he’s up to his old tricks again.
By @KitKlarenberg
[Link]
"With Washington and its NATO allies forced to watch from the sidelines as Russia’s military advances across Eastern Ukraine and encircles Kiev, US and British officials have resorted to a troubling tactic that could trigger a massive escalation. Following similar claims by his Secretary of State and ambassador the United Nations, US President Joseph Biden has declared that Russia will pay a “severe price” if it uses chemical weapons in Ukraine.
The warnings emanating from the Biden administration contain chilling echoes of those issued by the administration of President Barack Obama throughout the US-led dirty war on Syria.
Almost as soon as Obama implemented his ill-fated “red line” policy vowing an American military response if the Syrian army attacked the Western-backed opposition with chemical weapons, Al Qaeda-aligned opposition factions came forth with claims of mass casualty sarin and chlorine bombings of civilians. The result was a series of US-UK missile strikes on Damascus and a prolonged crisis that nearly triggered the kind of disastrous regime change war that had destabilized Iraq and Libya.
In each major chemical weapons event, signs of staging and deception by the armed Syrian opposition were present. As a former US ambassador in the Middle East told journalist Charles Glass, “The ‘red line’ was an open invitation to a false-flag operation.”"
https://twitter.com/HamishDBG/status/1506266286304731144?t=s8DCSXDXuU3qywrAU3559A&s=19
How to Survive a Chemical or Biological Attack - this is Free - please disseminate as widely as possible to civilians in #Ukraine & surrounding countries
[Link]
Most of the refugees will be males between the ages of 16 and 60.
Just like all the refugees that infested Germany, France and Britain.