DeSantis Flies Immigrants to Martha Vineyard

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wrong direction. They should fly them to Mexico City. Or maybe Rwanda.

Oh, look! An immigrant complaining about immigrants and immigration.

Oh, look! A guy who waited in line complaining about line-cutters. Oh, look! A guy who didn't have to wait in line because he got grandfathered in complaining about a guy who waited in line complaining about line-cutters. This is fun!

Do you have evidence these migrants didn't wait in line and therefore belong in Rwanda?

That would have been a fair question for ZH to have asked Derec if he hadn't instead opted for an ad hominem; but it's not really material to my meta-commentary.

It is material since you are doubling down (or even the originator) on a claim that they are line-cutters and defending Derec's conclusion. So, answer the question: do you have evidence these migrants didn't wait in line and therefore belong in Rwanda?

You're confused. I'm not defending Derec's conclusion; I'm defending Derec. The only thing I'm doubling down on is that "Oh, look! An immigrant complaining about immigrants and immigration." was a personal attack and a misleading half-truth. It's painfully obvious that Derec wasn't proposing they should be sent to Mexico City or Rwanda for immigrating; therefore ZH's accusation of a double standard was misplaced. Whether Derec's single standard has merit and is correctly applied in these immigrants' case, whether they in fact are guilty of that for which he proposes to send them away, and whether Rwanda is an appropriate destination*, are all immaterial to my defense of him. Defending those opinions is up to Derec.

(* And it's painfully obvious that Rwanda was hyperbole, not a literal recommendation.)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Yes, it's hyperbole. It's acting like a jerk and mean-sprited.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wrong direction. They should fly them to Mexico City. Or maybe Rwanda.

Oh, look! An immigrant complaining about immigrants and immigration.

Oh, look! A guy who waited in line complaining about line-cutters. Oh, look! A guy who didn't have to wait in line because he got grandfathered in complaining about a guy who waited in line complaining about line-cutters. This is fun!

Do you have evidence these migrants didn't wait in line and therefore belong in Rwanda?

That would have been a fair question for ZH to have asked Derec if he hadn't instead opted for an ad hominem; but it's not really material to my meta-commentary.

It is material since you are doubling down (or even the originator) on a claim that they are line-cutters and defending Derec's conclusion. So, answer the question: do you have evidence these migrants didn't wait in line and therefore belong in Rwanda?

You're confused. I'm not defending Derec's conclusion; I'm defending Derec. The only thing I'm doubling down on is that "Oh, look! An immigrant complaining about immigrants and immigration." was a personal attack and a misleading half-truth. It's painfully obvious that Derec wasn't proposing they should be sent to Mexico City or Rwanda for immigrating; therefore ZH's accusation of a double standard was misplaced. Whether Derec's single standard has merit and is correctly applied in these immigrants' case, whether they in fact are guilty of that for which he proposes to send them away, and whether Rwanda is an appropriate destination*, are all immaterial to my defense of him. Defending those opinions is up to Derec.

(* And it's painfully obvious that Rwanda was hyperbole, not a literal recommendation.)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Yes, it's hyperbole. It's acting like a jerk and mean-sprited.

...

Derec's post deserved derision and contempt. Put into further context of Derec's typical posts about darkies, the hyperbole about Rwanda is especially inflammatory. A response, showing lack of empathy in Derec's post is appropriate by placing Derec at the same level as other humans. Your rebuttal that the ZH response was a half-truth is incorrect since Derec could have easily not obtained citizenship due to regular non-remorseful criminality. Whether we agree with that law Derec breaks or any other laws you allege the "line cutters" broke is immaterial. The persons in question are all decent people, including Derec. Immigrant is not an insult.

 

[ZiprHead]

Oh, look! An immigrant complaining about immigrants and immigration.

Me being an immigrant should not preclude me from having an opinion on immigration policy (or lack thereof) of this country.

That you decided to go personal right off the gate does not bode well for the confidence you have in your arguments.

It's your opinion and your status that displays your hypocrisy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Did Derec come the the US illegally? Or did he follow the rules?

The latter.

So are the migrants who are applying for asylum. I assume that's exactly how you did it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Scrutiny mounts over DeSantis’s use of state funds for migrant flights

Florida lawmakers allocated $12 million in the state budget this year to “facilitate the transport of authorized aliens from this state” — raising questions about how the governor could justify the spending. The two Ultimate Air Shuttle flights originated in San Antonio — not Florida — according to Geoffrey Freeman, director of the airport on Martha’s Vineyard.

Two state Democratic lawmakers said Friday they will ask the legislature to instruct DeSantis to “cease his inappropriate use of taxpayer money.”

“This use of state funds is not what was intended or described in law, nor was it what was discussed in debate,” legislators Evan Jenne and Fentrice Driskell said in a statement.

State and local politicians in Massachusetts praised the response on Martha’s Vineyard, an offshore island accessible only by air and sea, where volunteers turned out in droves to assist the migrants when they showed up carrying maps and a few belongings. Some said they had expected to arrive in a bigger city, close to public transportation, and not a small island of 20,000 people.

The state said that “the island communities are not equipped to provide sustainable accommodation.”
On Friday morning, the migrants filed out of the church they’d been sleeping in for two nights to hugs from the local volunteers. They left with full bags and new cellphones. As they boarded the three white buses that would take them to the ferry, many cried.

Eliomar Aguero, 30, put up a peace sign, smiling and thanking the dozens of volunteers waving him on. “Thank you all,” Aguero said in Spanish.

Not from the article but seen elsewhere.

DeSantis tried to screw over these people. Apart from the fraud of telling them they were going to Chicago for processing and jobs then sending them somewhere else...

-They were given paperwork with deliberately misleading instructions, which puts their chances of being given asylum at risk.

-They were told to update their addresses with USCIS after being relocated, and that NOT being the correct agency this would put their chances of being given asylum at risk from not updating this information correctly.

-They were given false starting addresses from random homeless shelters far, far from Martha's Vineyard. They have to check in with ICE at the offices in these far off places and have court appearances in the counties of the offices as early as Monday, putting their chances of being given asylum at risk.

Their 'jackpot' was being trafficked in a way set up make their asylum claims be rejected and thus getting them deported, gaining DeSantis more of the headlines he wants. He sent a ******* videographer with them. He wanted them to be rejected from Martha's Vineyard and for his illegal sabotage of their asylum cases to get them deported.

The reason it isn't working is because people are more caring and more competent than he thought they were.

 

[southernhybrid]

Instead of sniping at each other, can we at least try to discuss why so many Venezuelans are seeking asylum? These people aren't trying to come here illegally. They are trying to seek asylum, just like countless numbers of people did in the past, due to circumstances that made them vulnerable to death, or extreme poverty.

I'm going to gift an article as well as post some excerpts for those who don't want to read the entire article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/...g6paXnOVqate7iv9n-F-Pxlu5vcmRg&smid=share-url

MARACAIBO, Venezuela — When Ana Villalobos heard that a group of Venezuelan migrants were at the center of a mushrooming political controversy in the United States, her reaction was swift and anguished.
Just days ago, her daughter had left this crisis-battered city and headed north with 40 others, some of them children and pregnant women, determined to cross the Darién Gap, a notoriously dangerous path straddling Panama and Colombia, in a quest to reach the United States.
Soon after, she had lost contact with her.
Then Ms. Villalobos learned Republican governors have been shipping newly arrived migrants like her daughter to other states.


Some of those in Latin America who have spoken out have accused Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Abbott of being largely out of touch with the crisis on the ground in Venezuela — and even of being hypocritical, given how harshly Republicans have criticized the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro, whom they blame for the crisis.
Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States, wrote on Twitter that Mr. DeSantis was using the migrants as “political props,” which he called “disgusting and so reprehensible.”

“That many of these were Venezuelans simply disproves the alleged concern GOP politicians in FL profess to have for democracy and human rights” in Latin America, he wrote.

In Maracaibo, a city in a once flourishing oil-rich state in western Venezuela, Ms. Villalobos, 53, said her daughter, a high school graduate, left because her two jobs, selling clothing and working at a restaurant, did not earn the family “even enough to buy food for a week.”

A neighbor of hers, Zulay Chirinos, had a friend in the same group that had left to try to make it to the United States. That friend, 21, was four months pregnant, Ms. Chirinos added.
“They ask me: Why risk it?” she said. “She risked it because it’s a choice between dying on the route, or dying here.”
The migrants being sent across the United States by the governors are a small part of an extraordinary crisis unfolding farther south. Since 2013, millions of Venezuelans have fled an economic, social and democratic crisis overseen by the country’s leftist government, one that economists have called the worst outside of war in decades.
Many of those migrants fled to other nations in South America. But as the pandemic has battered South American economies, many Venezuelans are now headed north.
An estimated 6.8 million Venezuelans, more than a fifth of the population, have left the country, the largest international displacement in the hemisphere’s history.

​

There's more in the article, but hopefully you get the point. People who come here seeking asylum are almost always living in dangerous, unbearable situations. It's not that uncommon for immigrants who have made it here, especially if they were so privileged as to come here legally without any hassle, to be hypercritical of those who come here out of desperation. I don't understand that lack of compassion. We are supposed to be a country that welcomes immigrants who are willing to work and make the country a better place. Most who come here are hard woking people who simply want a chance to improve their lives and that of their families. Since our country has such a low birth rate and since we have a very high number of jobs that need to be filled, one would think that most Americans would be welcoming immigrants seeking asylum, by putting their lives at risk.

Instead of using human beings as political props, why don't these Republican hypocritical governors ask for help from the federal government in helping settle the immigrants and speed up the asylum process? What they are doing is for sensationalism as well as hoping to gain more votes from those who may not understand the process of asylum, as well as those who are hateful bigots.

It's true that immigrants have always been subjected to hate and discrimination from some groups of people, regardless if those immigrants were Irish, Polish, Arabic, etc. That doesn't mean that our better selves can't welcome those who are fleeing such harsh conditions as those from Venezuela. As the article mentions, the Republicans were quick to judge the leaders of Venezuela when it became an autocratic, communist state, until some of its people started coming here seeking asylum and a chance for a decent life. I personally think that we need more immigrants, especially those who are so brave that they are willing to put their lives at risk, for a chance to have the opportunity to be part of the US. What do you who disapprove have against these people? What would you do if you were in their situation?

 

[laughing dog]

No, I am suggesting your response is inept. I am suggesting that when someone who is no longer in line complains about a linecutter, it makes it seem more like whining than anything else.

Having an opinion on immigration that differs from left wing orthodoxy is not "whining".

No one said it was.

That too is an ad hominem attack against anybody who disagrees.

Using a straw man to whine is pretty lame.

 

[laughing dog]

Someone who is no longer in line really has little reason to complain about a linecutter.

You appear to be suggesting a personal characteristic of Derec renders his argument invalid.

No, I am suggesting your response is inept. I am suggesting that when someone who is no longer in line complains about a linecutter, it makes it seem more like whining than anything else.

And when a woman is complaining about Roe v Wade being overturned, it seems like whining to you if she's past menopause? Why on earth should people's sense of right and wrong shut down just as soon as they are no longer personally harmed by the action they're criticizing?

You get an FRoe v Wade is about a right being overturned. Linecutting is a not about a right at all, so your analogy is even more inept that your initial response.

Every analogy compares situations that differ in some way; pointing out a difference is utterly not up to the task of showing an analogy is inept.

Are you serious? Pointing out that an analogy is substantively different in content is certainly up to the task of showing the analogy is inept. Y

Regardless of whether a right is at stake, not being the person harmed doesn't make a criticism "whining". Why the bejesus would it?

Thank you for your straw man.

People's sense of right and wrong is not an argument. People are entitled to their views but that does not require anyone to take the seriously.

"Someone who is no longer in line really has little reason to complain about a linecutter." is not an argument -- this isn't a court where litigants have to prove "standing" before their positions are considered. Whether linecutting is wrong and should be penalized does not depend on whether the speaker is one of the people hurt by it.

Are you serious? "Someone who is no longer in line really has little reason to complain about a linecutter" is can certainly be an argument. In this case, it was simply an observation.

I used your reference to a personal characteristic of Derec in my response. I guess that makes your argument an ad hom fallacy as well.

Ooh, "A" for effort! No dice though -- I wasn't implying Derec's personal characteristic bore on the validity of his argument. My reference to a personal characteristic of his was purely to show that ZiprHead's ad hominem not only was an ad hominem, but also was baseless.

I do appreciate your zeal in whiteknighting efforts on the part of your tribe

Tribe? The heck are you on about? I'll defend anybody who's unjustly attacked. I called Derec on it when he attacked a leftist unjustly.

I realize you believe it to be true. You do not defend anyone who is unjustly attacked. Your "interventions" tend to heavily tilt towards a particular tribe.

but yYour response gets a F for reasoning because it failed on all counts. You did not show Z's response was baseless.

Your sense of failure is not an argument; you're entitled to your view but you haven't given anyone a reason to take you seriously.

True, we are all entitled to our views. Apparently you take it seriously enough to use faulty reasoning and straw man in attempted rebuttals.

I did not imply an effing thing about the validity of Derec's position.

Nobody said you did; I explained why your "I guess that makes your argument an ad hom fallacy as well." argument was a non sequitur.

Your explaination failed since it is based on a straw man.

 

[Bronzeage]

<snip>

It is material since you are doubling down (or even the originator) on a claim that they are line-cutters and defending Derec's conclusion. So, answer the question: do you have evidence these migrants didn't wait in line and therefore belong in Rwanda?

You're confused. I'm not defending Derec's conclusion; I'm defending Derec. The only thing I'm doubling down on is that "Oh, look! An immigrant complaining about immigrants and immigration." was a personal attack and a misleading half-truth. It's painfully obvious that Derec wasn't proposing they should be sent to Mexico City or Rwanda for immigrating; therefore ZH's accusation of a double standard was misplaced. Whether Derec's single standard has merit and is correctly applied in these immigrants' case, whether they in fact are guilty of that for which he proposes to send them away, and whether Rwanda is an appropriate destination*, are all immaterial to my defense of him. Defending those opinions is up to Derec.

(* And it's painfully obvious that Rwanda was hyperbole, not a literal recommendation.)

Maybe not. Boris Johnson's UK government had a serious plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, where they would wait for their case to be processed. It was an expensive plan and had many practical problems which had not been solved.

It's just variation on the neocon tenet of the powerful can do anything to the powerless, without regard to the rule of law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're confused. I'm not defending Derec's conclusion; I'm defending Derec. The only thing I'm doubling down on is that "Oh, look! An immigrant complaining about immigrants and immigration." was a personal attack and a misleading half-truth. It's painfully obvious that Derec wasn't proposing they should be sent to Mexico City or Rwanda for immigrating; therefore ZH's accusation of a double standard was misplaced. Whether Derec's single standard has merit and is correctly applied in these immigrants' case, whether they in fact are guilty of that for which he proposes to send them away, and whether Rwanda is an appropriate destination*, are all immaterial to my defense of him. Defending those opinions is up to Derec.

(* And it's painfully obvious that Rwanda was hyperbole, not a literal recommendation.)

I disagree--the complaint was about an immigrant being anti-immigrant.

 

[atrib]

Not just any immigrant, an immigrant who habitually breaks the laws of the land and talks about it online.

Ah yes, the tired old "sex work" derail every time a Prohibitionist runs out of arguments in any thread. It usually does not happen this quickly. Congrats, I guess. Not as common as the "but Trump" derail, but still pretty common.

You didn't make any arguments, you made a snarky comment about shipping refugee seekers to somewhere in Africa, presumably because they did not enter the country without legal documentation. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in your position.

Oh come off that. I break the laws, you break the laws, coo-coo for cashews* and all that.

I do not get the cashews joke, but the laws against sex work are really no different than laws against gay sex. Both should have been invalidated under the logic behind Lawrence v. Texas, not just the latter.

Still, it's a phenomena of an artificially erected barrier wherein those who overcome the artificial barrier will often feel desert for having done so, superiority over those who have not, and attempt to close off opportunities behind them.

If you want to have a country, borders are essential. That does not mean no immigration, I never made that argument. But we need clear laws and policies about immigration, and we need to enforce them. Sanctuary cities/states or a president deciding he will not deport most illegals should be anathema.

What about people who have entered the US legally but habitually break its laws? Should we send them back too? Since they took an oath to uphold the laws of the land.

 

[Bomb#20]

(* And it's painfully obvious that Rwanda was hyperbole, not a literal recommendation.)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Yes, it's hyperbole. It's acting like a jerk and mean-sprited.

The federal government being lax about border enforcement for nation-level political reasons and expecting border states to deal with the consequences and absorb the costs because the feds can't be bothered to fund the mandates they impose is acting like a jerk and mean-spirited. What goes around comes around.

 

[Bomb#20]

I disagree--the complaint was about an immigrant being anti-immigrant.

How is that a disagreement? Groundlessly accusing anti-illegal-immigration people of being "anti-immigrant" is an endlessly recurring theme in left-wing rhetoric. It's character assassination constructed for the purpose of winning a debate by cheating. No evidence has been introduced to support the contention that Derec is anti-immigrant.

 

[Bomb#20]

Did Derec come the the US illegally? Or did he follow the rules?

The latter.

So are the migrants who are applying for asylum. I assume that's exactly how you did it.

Why on earth would you assume that? Grants of asylum account for about 3% of green cards.

 

[atrib]

Soliciting prostitutes is seen as a serious crime by many jurisdictions,

So was gay sex. And still is, in many jurisdictions outside the US.

That same argument could be made for legalizing pretty much everything we do. I am a safe driver, I take care of my car, and I believe I should have the right to drive at any speed I deem to be safe on the public roads. Therefore, it is ok for me to break the law by exceeding the posted speed limits.

If you want to make it legal, petition your representatives to change the law. That is the whole point of democracy. But until the law is changed you remain a common criminal if you break the law.

primarily because prostitution is often entangled with drugs and human trafficking for sex.

While there is some of that, there is no reason to use it as an argument to restrict freedoms of consenting adults.
Note also that negative sides of sex work are exacerbated when the whole sex trade, including that between consenting adults, is kept illegal.
Your side sounds as if alcohol Prohibitionists would argue that we should not make alcohol legal again because can't you see what horrible things people involved with alcohol trade like Al Capone are doing? Completely ignoring that all that is the product of Prohibition.

Talk to your elected representative about changing the law.

Law enforcement down south takes it seriously enough to set up sting operations on a regular basis, prosecute the the offenders, and in some cases, even shame the Johns in public.

Not just "down south", but it does happen. And they will inevitably use the cudgel of "human trafficking" to describe any sex work sting, whether or not (it's almost always "not") there is any actual human trafficking. That asshole sheriff in Florida is case in point. I am not surprised you like him.
What does that have to do with anything though? Those opposed to gay sex used similar leaps of logic to link all gays with pederasty. Abusing young boys is horrible, but it should not be used to restrict freedoms of consenting adult (or otherwise above age of consent) men and women.

Human trafficking and drugs are real, and are often associated with the sex trade, as the video points out.

I don't agree with the sheriff's tactics and I happen to believe that he is a small minded religious right-wing zealot who does this for publicity. And I think shaming people who have been charged with crimes but not convicted of them carries with it the potential liability of been sued by an accused person who is later proved to be innocent - that opens up the door to damages and large settlements which come out of the taxpayers' pockets and not out of the sheriff's budget. I was pointing out that law enforcement down south takes this shit seriously, and if you continue to break the law, it is quite possible that you will end being apprehended in a vice operation, and your activities will be made public knowledge. That may very well end your career.

And I tend to agree. I think it is hypocritical for an immigrant who knowingly and habitually breaks the law to be disparaging refugees who have crossed our borders illegally.

Unlike you, I can separate different issues. Immigration policies and laws are different than laws on sex work (one similarity being that they are both a mess in the US and many other places). You and I can discuss both in appropriate threads. What we should not do is derail one thread with cheap personal attacks, like you and others love to do with this particular issue.

It wasn't a personal attack. It was an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of your position as a former immigrant who took an oath to follow the rule of law (assuming you have been naturalized), but habitually break the law and flaunt it on these forums.

 

[steve_bank]

I ahve to agree in priciple.

The border situaion is insane and out of control. There is no way to provide suport on such a scale, yet democrts do nothing, VP Harris siad 'the border is secure;. A this point my only conclusion is that the democrats want an iflux of non whites to cnage the power balance.

Yexas and the pole living on the borer are going throuh a lot of pain with the endless flood.

The last governor of Ca said on national TV that Ca welomes illegal immigrants.

I am not a conservativee, but if I were governor of Texas I'd be dumping immigrants in democratic cities to make a point. The illegal immigrants are very much being dumpoed on Texas.

Stating te obvious. If yiu are qustioning what Texas and Florida re doing what are you not questioning the border policy which the left seems to want as is. The policy at the root of the issues.

 

[Copernicus]

DeSantis is taking a page from an old racist playbook that was tried back in the 1960s by Republicans to try to expose the hypocrisy of Democrats. At that time, it was in the name of stopping racial integration. Now it is in the name of stopping people from seeking legal asylum in the US. In both cases, the victims of this cruel stunt were duped into agreeing to the trip as a means of gaining benefits at the end, only to find that they had been lied to.

See:

Before migrants were sent to Martha's Vineyard, there were the "Reverse Freedom Rides"​

In any case, DeSantis may have shot himself in the foot with a lot of voters in the Hispanic community in an important election year, since he is using Latin American refugees in an inhumane and humiliating way. These are not people who are sneaking into the US. They are here legally. So the move may be popular with his base of white voters, but it is going to lose him some votes, too. It puts other Republicans running for office in a tough spot, because they now may have to defend his behavior.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

(* And it's painfully obvious that Rwanda was hyperbole, not a literal recommendation.)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Yes, it's hyperbole. It's acting like a jerk and mean-sprited.

The federal government being lax about border enforcement for nation-level political reasons and expecting border states to deal with the consequences and absorb the costs because the feds can't be bothered to fund the mandates they impose is acting like a jerk and mean-spirited.

Nice try. No, using hyperbole to advocate for sending decent human beings to Rwanda known for human rights abuses because a person thinks it's funny is acting like a jerk and mean-spirited.

 

[Swammerdami]

Instead of sniping at each other, can we at least try to discuss why so many Venezuelans are seeking asylum? These people aren't trying to come here illegally. They are trying to seek asylum, just like countless numbers of people did in the past, due to circumstances that made them vulnerable to death, or extreme poverty.

Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States, wrote on Twitter that Mr. DeSantis was using the migrants as “political props,” which he called “disgusting and so reprehensible.”

DeSantis' stunt really was unusually vile. He lied to the refugees and fabricated fake addresses to screw their asylum chances. Surely this reprehensible conduct warrants felony charges.

But we saw in this very thread — with an inane comparison between El Paso's sincere effort to get help from New York City and DeSantis' criminal theater — that a large portion of Americans are easily duped and/or actively cheer gross malice.

An estimated 6.8 million Venezuelans, more than a fifth of the population, have left the country, the largest international displacement in the hemisphere’s history.

There are refugee crises around the world, much worse than the status just ten years ago. UNHCR estimates there are 95+ million forcibly displaced persons altogether, about a third of whom have fled their country. The scale of these crises serve as further evidence of humanity's perilous future.

The six biggest sources of international refugees are

Syria 6.8 million​

Venezuela 6.0 million​

Ukraine 4.8 million​

Afghanistan 2.7 million​

South Sudan 2.4 million​

Myanmar 1.2 million​

Refugees need a refuge! Some humans feel united by humanity. Others take the attitude "I got mine, Ha ha. Screw the rest of all y'all 'less you're white English-speaking Christian."

Countries which have accepted the most refugees include

Turkey 3.8 million​

Jordan 3.0 million​

Colombia 1.8 million​

Uganda 1.5 million​

Pakistan 1.5 million​

Germany 1.3 million​

Lebanon 1.3 million​

Sudan 1.1 million​

Bangladesh 0.9 million​

Iran 0.8 million​

Ethiopia 0.8 million​

Columbia and Turkey are adjacent to Venezuela and Syria, explaining their high acceptance numbers, but Germany shows long-distance humanitarianism. Ranked by refugees per capita, Germany (1.6% of population are refugees) is below countries like Sweden (2.6%) but of course way above the ungenerous USA (0.1%).

 

[Ford]

I ahve to agree in priciple.

The border situaion is insane and out of control. There is no way to provide suport on such a scale, yet democrts do nothing, VP Harris siad 'the border is secure;. A this point my only conclusion is that the democrats want an iflux of non whites to cnage the power balance.

Yexas and the pole living on the borer are going throuh a lot of pain with the endless flood.

The last governor of Ca said on national TV that Ca welomes illegal immigrants.

I am not a conservativee, but if I were governor of Texas I'd be dumping immigrants in democratic cities to make a point. The illegal immigrants are very much being dumpoed on Texas.

Stating te obvious. If yiu are qustioning what Texas and Florida re doing what are you not questioning the border policy which the left seems to want as is. The policy at the root of the issues.

You may not be conservative, but it appears you've bought the conservative narrative that the border was just hunky dory until Biden became President and implemented an "open borders" policy, effectively removing any impediments from crossing said border. To hear the right wing tell it, the mighty wall has been torn down, the checkpoints are unmanned, and the Border Patrol is no longer allowed to intercept migrants, but instead are spending their days watching "woke" Disney movies instead of doing their jobs.