MILWAUKEE, Wisc. — In the intricate dance of political maneuvering, a common thread weaves through the ambitions of two prominent figures: the president in exile, Donald Trump (who will not attend the Wednesday debate), and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The prospect of Trump’s triumphant return to the White House or DeSantis’ ascent to the Republican nomination and presidency carries with it a resounding promise – the implementation of rigorous immigration policies and a fortified southern border. With a plethora of new policies from the president’s advisor Stephen Miller, Trump’s vision comes to life as an “unprecedented approach” that intends to unravel the threads of the brutal rape of America’s sovereignty by third world pestilences, a vexing challenge that has remained a shadow cast by “Mumbly Joe” Biden’s tenure.

Within the tapestry of Trump’s envisioned strategy, the border wall’s completion merely marks a cornerstone of a multifaceted blueprint that envisions not just physical barriers but sweeping and systematic changes. This anticipated transformation beckons as Adviser Stephen Miller declares that the initial 100 days of a Trump administration will usher in “pure bliss” for those who advocate for heightened immigration control. These grand plans, articulated as specific actions, invoke the specter of relying on the corrupt hellhole that is Mexico to reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols(MPP), which is imperative to the survival of America. Any third-world parasite, awaiting their court hearings, would find themselves on the southern side of the border. The reverberations of the pandemic’s public health order,Title 42, are poised to return, hinging on the battle against child trafficking. Moreover, Trump’s strategy enters novel territory, with propositions like designating drug cartels as terrorists and granting US forces authority to operate within Mexico.

So, as if plucked from a saga of maritime vigilance, the Navy and Coast Guard emerge as key players, tasked with intercepting drug smuggling endeavors that ply their trade across the waters between the US and Latin America. The repatriation of criminal elements, within the purview of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, and the prohibition of entry for nationals hailing from countries with high visa overstay rates resonate with an uncompromising stance. Echoes of policies past reverberate as Trump’s plan encompasses the termination of birthright citizenship for the litters of illegal aliens, i.e., anchor-babies. An exploration of social media accounts to assess ideology, as enabled by Section 212f of immigration law, embodies the essence of an administration that seems poised to chart a course through uncharted territory.

While Trump’s vision crystallizes into a comprehensive panorama, Governor DeSantis, who called the supporters of the president “listless“, presents a vision of his own. With an ardent critique of immigration from Poland, Brazil, and the diversity visa lottery, DeSantis navigates the delicate terrain of immigration policy with poise. His perspective takes form as he notes that immigrants don’t possess an inherent “right” to enter America; rather, their admission hinges on the interests of the nation’s citizens. DeSantis champions a shift towards a skills-based immigration model. This path dispenses with the concept of “chain migration” in favor of a system that aligns incoming talent with American needs. At first glance, this policy appears to have a logical foundation.

However, concerns arise that immigration in all its forms poses a significant challenge to our cultural identity, strains our available resources, and diminishes opportunities for our native population. Furthermore, the contention persists that even highly skilled immigrants would obviously displace qualified natural-born,i.e., real Americans, from well-paying positions and contribute to a decline in wages for our educated workforce. The nuanced interplay between these considerations highlights the complex landscape surrounding immigration discussions. Despite this, DeSantis stands resolute in his conviction, advocating for the prioritization of immediate family members, while dissenting from Reagan’s disastrous amnesty policy.

In a crescendo of policy symphony, the Republican platform takes form under these two influential figures, charting a course towards fortified border security and nuanced immigration control. A symphony of policies is poised to resonate, intended to limit entry to those seeking to be parasites on the American people. Diversity visas and the concept of so-called “family reunification” stand at a crossroads as the nation pivots toward a future that accommodates stringent security and economic considerations. As these plans unfold, both the Capitol’s chambers and the judicial arena stand ready to play their roles in a narrative that could potentially reshape the course of immigration in America. While this proposal may appear hopeful, there remains significant skepticism surrounding the likelihood of these crucial measures aimed at restricting immigration gaining actual traction. Additionally, the policies outlined in this plan fall short of the comprehensive approach needed to address immigration concerns. Notably absent is an imperative provision of a substantial 50-year moratorium on all forms of immigration.

Amidst the fervor surrounding the impending 2024 election, foreign policy emerges as a pivotal point of contention and deliberation. As the nation stands at the crossroads of choosing its next leader, the question of how the United States will navigate its relationships with the global community looms large. The complex tapestry of international affairs, diplomacy, and geopolitical dynamics forms the backdrop against which candidates will articulate their visions and strategies for shaping the nation’s role on the global stage.Akin to the historic clash at the Battle of Katasin, the two pajeet candidates engage in a fierce and riveting contest for supremacy. In the realm of international affairs, the ongoing debate revolves around the stances of candidates like Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy.

While both figures are vying for the Republican presidential nomination, their positions on aid to Israel and relations with Taiwan mark distinct contrasts. Haley, a former U.N. Ambassador and a prominent voice, staunchly opposes any notion of cutting aid to Israel, who might have played a role in the 9/11 attacks. She asserts that the bond between the United States and Israel is not just a strategic move but a moral imperative. In her view, this alliance bolsters both countries, enhancing their strength and security. This is contrary to the fact that resources allocated to support Israel divert focus from other security priorities that may have a more direct impact on US interests. In fact, our once great nation has not built new Abrams tanks since the early 1990s. Additionally, while we secure the borders of Israel and its colony, Ukraine, our border is being flooded by a disease-ridden feral onslaught.

Ramaswamy, on the other hand, takes a somewhat alternative route. He proposes a more integrated approach to Israel’s relations with its Middle Eastern neighbours, emphasizing a desire to expand the Abraham Accords to include additional countries like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and Indonesia. Ramaswamy envisions a scenario where the need for significant military aid to Israel diminishes over time, as regional integration fosters stability. This approach, however, prompts concerns, as Haley points out. She highlights the broader pattern in Ramaswamy’s foreign policy proposals, claiming they collectively jeopardize America’s safety. These positions tap into a broader discussion about the appropriate course for the United States on the global stage. While Haley emphasizes maintaining parasitic relationships with nations abroad (Ukraine and Israel are tapeworms sucking the life out of the United States), Ramaswamy is pushing for a recalibration that reduces direct financial support while promoting a more collaborative regional framework.

As the anticipation for the upcoming GOP presidential debate mounts, the spotlight remains unwaveringly fixed on the intricate web of foreign policy positions held by these contenders. Their stances serve as microcosms of the grander narrative that courses through the veins of the nation – a narrative that grapples with the very essence of America’s place on the global stage. These candidates, each a vessel for distinct viewpoints, cast shadows that stretch far beyond the debate stage, engaging in a dialogue that echoes the broader conversations unfolding within the heart of the nation. The resonance of their perspectives reverberates through the intricate tapestry of discussions about national identity, security, and the intricate dance between domestic and international concerns. As the curtain prepares to rise on the grand spectacle of the debate, it is these diverging voices and their stances on foreign policy that stand poised to enrich and illuminate the ongoing discourse about America’s role in a rapidly evolving world.