I know what I saw and I know your view is a minority among Americans. We have a different thread to rehash that, but I see no need to. Why did the Burmese refugee deserve to be treated the way he was? Why couldn't he have been driven home once it was clear that he was here lawfully? Furthermore, why do you seem so unconcerned with the unnecessary death of somebody who lawfully came here to escape state persecution? You have repeatedly said that anything is justified if it means getting rid of all illegal immigrants. Do you care about harm and callous treatment of others when it's clear they didn't deserve it like it seems happened in this case? Your posts seem to suggest that you're fine with people incidentally dying, being unlawfully detained, and having their Constitutional rights impeded if it means getting rid of "all illegals" - something you know will never happen.
The biggest crime was that he was let in to begin with. We have our own elderly we can't take care of, and instead pretend we have the resources to take care of elderly, blind refugees who will be left to fend for themselves? They'll somehow figure things out without being able to work? On one hand, you don't want to meddle in foreign affairs. On the other, you think every person experiencing hardship anywhere in the world should be given free entry and things will magically work themselves out. This is called suicidal empathy - it's not just a disservice to Americans, but it's cruel to the refugees themselves. We are not in a position to do any of this when millions of Americans are struggling and need whatever help they can get.
I disagree. We can take care of our elderly, we just choose not to. We could pay for all the things we lack, but we've decided to not take in the necessary revenue. Champagne taste, beer budget. You've assumed a lot of my beliefs in this post. You're wrong on most accounts. The man's presence was not a crime. If you're who I think you are, you're smart enough to know that word has a definition and this doesn't meet it.