Immigration is completely out of control (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SystemShock

    Uh yu ka t'ann
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    2,865
    Reaction score
    2,793
    Location
    Xibalba
    Offline
    A couple of days ago, one of the main US-MX border points of entry was blocked by 1000's of migrants demanding entry into the country, which caused chaos for those who lawfully cross the border on business, for work, or for delivery of goods, both ways.

    Lawful border crossings are getting progressively worse across the border, and drug cartels are finding it easier to move product, as the CBP has to transfer personnel and efforts to the processing of migrants.

    It's not different on MX's South border. Yesterday, ~5000 migrants stormed into Chiapas all the way to the INM building (INM is immigration) running over fences, barricades, and elements of the National Guard. They are now taking over an ecological park in Tapachula, Chiapas, which it's going to be severely affected, as it's been the case with just about everywhere migrants squat.

    Unfortunately, Juan Trump (that's Donald Trump's pet name for the President of México) was bamboozled by his "friend" Donald into making MX a "lobby" for migrants trying to reach the U.S.

    Many people would argue that migrants are "good for the economy", but that is not always the case. Billions of dollars leave the U.S. economy every year, because migrants send money from the U.S. to other countries to support families there. The biggest destinations are India and MX, to the tune of 100 billion dollars in 2023 alone, according to the Bank of México (kind of like the MX version of the Fed). These billions of dollars do not circulate in the U.S. economy.

    Speaking of inflation, the past year, the U.S. dollar has lost ~20% of its value against the MX peso. One of the main reasons for it, is the amount of money being sent to MX from the U.S. And MX is the U.S. 2nd largest trading partner.

    Gregg Abbott is a lot of things, but I don't blame him for his attempts at curbing the hordes of people demanding entry into the U.S., even the busing of migrants to other States, making some put their money where their mouth is, like the Mayor of NYC, who was so welcoming of migrants, until he he got a taste, then went crying to the federal government for more money, while the shelters were at full capacity; shelters which BTW serve the NYC poor as well.

    And please, no one mention a wall. There is a wall. A wall can be climbed; a wall can be dug under.; holes can be punched through walls.
     
    Here's the thing though. I'm not a fan of the narrative. He should be doing this because it's the right thing to do, not because he wants to shore up his base or whatever.

    I support a path to citizenship for individuals who fit certain criteria, it's the right thing to do.
    I thought that statement by CNN was pretty much editorial rather than reporting, unless they got someone from the administration to admit to that - which I highly doubt. CNN has taken a rightward turn lately, and I think this is evidence of that bias.
     
    I thought that statement by CNN was pretty much editorial rather than reporting, unless they got someone from the administration to admit to that - which I highly doubt. CNN has taken a rightward turn lately, and I think this is evidence of that bias.
    I watch CNN somewhat regularly and I'm not seeing any sort of rightward turn. Their guests are probably 2 to 1 liberal or left leaning. Their bias is left of center. It's long been that way.

    The only thing I can see is their coverage of Israel-Gaza tends to be biased towards Israel. They do regularly feature reports of the suffering in Gaza. I do think they make some effort to present all sides of an issue.

    I mean, they interviewed Kristi Noem and it wasn't exactly a friendly interview. Dana Bash asked some pretty reasonable and tough questions.

    And they definitely have anti-Trump agenda if nothing else.
     
    My response was completely rational. This response from you is completely emotional. It's something I expect a 12 or 13 year old child to say, not a 46 year old adult.


    You don't know this. Biden and his legal counsel might have written the executive order in a way they genuinely believe is consistent with the law.

    Has Biden gone on the record saying he knows it's illegal?

    You can't know what Biden knows or thinks. You can only believe you know what Biden knows or thinks.

    You keep stating your opinion as if it is a known fact. Your opinion is not a known fact.
    The Biden apologists are getting as bad as Trumpers.
     
    Biden is using EO due to the fact that the house does not function in any way or shape. So he rather accept the chaos that the MAGAs want or he orders his legal experts to find a way to solve important issues when the house refuse to do their job!
     
    The Biden apologists are getting as bad as Trumpers.
    Who's making apologies for Biden and what apologies have they made?

    I'm not seeing anyone doing that. What I'm seeing is people raising logical counterpoints to what you are saying.

    How do you know that Biden doesn't believe he structured his executive order in a way that is legal?

    Has Biden issued a statement saying he knows his order is illegal?

    Have you heard analysis review the specific language of his executive order and point out how it's illegal?

    How about you actually back up what you say by discussing the actual topic instead of making these defensive, ad hominem, strawman arguments?
     
    Last edited:
    Who's making apologies for Biden and what apologies have they made?

    I'm not seeing anyone doing that. What I'm seeing is people raising logical counterpoints to what you are saying.

    How do you know that Biden doesn't believe he structured his executive order in a way that is legal?

    Has Biden issued a statement saying he knows his order is illegal?

    Have you heard analysis review the specific language of his executive order and point out how it's illegal?

    How about you actually back up what you say by discussing the actual topic instead of making these defensive, ad hominem, strawman arguments?

    Biden knows his EO is illegal.
     
    Biden knows his EO is illegal.
    And how do you know that? Did he tell you or are you telepathic?

    You're confusing what you believe with what you know which is leading you to mistakenly believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you is making excuses for Biden.

    I don't know what Biden thinks about his executive order. I haven't read his executive order. I haven't read any legal analysis of his specific executive order. No court has ruled on his executive order, so I don't know if it is illegal or not and I don't know what Biden knows or thinks about it.

    That's just a statement of fact and is in no way an apology for Biden or me letting Trump drag me down to his level.

    It's just me be aware of what I know and don't know at this point.
     


    I don't even have to look this up, but I know that program was put in place to reduce illegal immigration and reduce immigrants taking that long journey to the border. It opens up legal pathways to enter the US instead of forcing them to do it at the border. Which is what we should all want.

    Why do you and the people you follow constantly have to lie and distort everything?
     
    Mike Lee has to be one of the stupidest people in Congress, and that’s a high bar to clear right now.

    The GOP rails against migrants crossing the border to seek asylum, and when Biden’s admin develops a way for people to stay in their country and apply for asylum from there to prevent them coming across the border before their claim is processed - they don’t like that either.

    SFL: since you posted it, can you explain what you think Lee is right about here?
     
    I get that people here don't like Mike Lee, and don't think much of what SFL posts, but there are valid concerns here, and a number of questions that probably need to be answered. One that immediately comes to mind is, if the purpose of these offices is to prevent people from making the perilous journey to the U.S. border, how would they get to the U.S.? Is the U.S. going to spring for airfare?

    Another one is, Costa Rica? What conflict is there in Costa Rica? Anecdotal, sure, and maybe I just haven't paid too much attention, but of all of the nationalities that come across MX, I have never heard of anyone from Costa Rica. Sure they may be a few, but not in the 1000's like to other S.A. countries.

    Now, it is possible that these offices may have another purpose, one which Mayorkas wouldn't express openly, and that is to curb immigration by keeping the people who want to come to the U.S. over there, tied up in red tape. Which wouldn't be a bad thing.
     
    So, IMO the purpose is to prevent people from entering the country without having their case for asylum looked at. Right now, as I understand it, thousands of people show up, claim asylum and are assigned a case number and then (as long as they don’t have discernible red flags) they are free to live their lives until their case goes before the judge, which can take years. Effectively rendering the asylum process null and void because this is unworkable.

    If people stay in their country apply for asylum and are eventually denied, they don’t have to be found and deported, because they are not here. Less expensive for them, and for the US.

    Presumably if their application is granted they will get here the way they were going to get here before. 🤷‍♀️

    I don’t know about Costa Rica. Maybe some people fleeing other countries end up there and want to apply?

    Also, the above is my understanding. Sam can correct my errors.
     
    So, IMO the purpose is to prevent people from entering the country without having their case for asylum looked at. Right now, as I understand it, thousands of people show up, claim asylum and are assigned a case number and then (as long as they don’t have discernible red flags) they are free to live their lives until their case goes before the judge, which can take years. Effectively rendering the asylum process null and void because this is unworkable.

    If people stay in their country apply for asylum and are eventually denied, they don’t have to be found and deported, because they are not here. Less expensive for them, and for the US.

    Presumably if their application is granted they will get here the way they were going to get here before. 🤷‍♀️

    I don’t know about Costa Rica. Maybe some people fleeing other countries end up there and want to apply?

    Also, the above is my understanding. Sam can correct my errors.

    Right anyone who has a problem with this is admitting we shouldn't give asylum to any of these individuals. There is no other debate to be had about this. It stops asylum seekers from entering the country without legal authorization. That is what you wanted right?

    P.S. I also realize pro-wall people are going to play dumb about this. Policies like this stop more individuals from entering the country then 15 feet of chain link fencing. It further illustrates the Idiocracy levels of intelligence the Republican party is swimming in.
     
    I don’t know about Costa Rica. Maybe some people fleeing other countries end up there and want to apply?

    If they have made it to CR, they already fled whatever situation they were fleeing from, and supposedly already received asylum from CR.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom