Biden Border Crisis

[DadSmith]

Would the Senate border deal ‘legalize’ 2 million immigrants a year?

Fact checking the claim that the Senate immigration deal would allow 5,000 border crossers into the country a day.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[foszoe]

It's like abortion in a way. If they win, it will happen through the courts somehow because they are too scared to legislate it.

Conservative politicians have complained about illegal immigration for years. But their donors need nannies. So they pretend they can’t do anything about it and then fundraise off of it. Yeah. Those Neocon ****s like Haley enriching themselves from other people’s misery.

 

[JCSR]

Biden: ‘I’ve Done All I Can Do’ To Solve Border Crisis, ‘Give Me The Power!’​

 

[JCSR]

Chicago seems nice if you're an illegal.........

 

[KG1]

I don't see a conservative pro-open-border caucus. I don't support that. I saw deportations surge under Trump and was just fine with it.

Texas led by GOP Conservative Governor Abbot is the antithesis of open borders. Abbot represents true Conservative border policies and he's willing to go to the mat with those policies against open border advocates. Including the federal government led by the Biden administration.

 

[Mikey1911]

Biden: ‘I’ve Done All I Can Do’ To Solve Border Crisis, ‘Give Me The Power!’​

About 2300 volts of single-phase 60 Hz AC ought to work.

As an alternative, Amtrak has 12.5 kV 25 Hz single-phase AC available.

 

[Leadeye]

I guess I just don't understand how more laws are going to fix the problem. They are already breaking the existing laws so how will passing more of them help?

Maybe they are double secret laws that they can't show the American public and these are so powerful that the illegals will follow them.

 

[JCSR]

I guess I just don't understand how more laws are going to fix the problem. They are already breaking the existing laws so how will passing more of them help?

Maybe they are double secret laws that they can't show the American public and these are so powerful that the illegals will follow them.

I think it's called "kicking the can down the road".

 

[Leadeye]

I think it's called "kicking the can down the road".

At least until nadler get his landscaping done.

 

[actaeon277]

Yet ANOTHER example of CREATING a problem.
Then asking for more power to fix it.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I guess I just don't understand how more laws are going to fix the problem. They are already breaking the existing laws so how will passing more of them help?

Maybe they are double secret laws that they can't show the American public and these are so powerful that the illegals will follow them.

The best border wall the US can have is an economically successful Mexico.

US consumers have spent half a century “pulling China out of poverty” to the detriment of both American workers and the global security landscape…imagine the power that investment might have had in Mexico (and then) South America instead.

US policy is to blame for a significant amount of the issues to our south. If we don‘t want to deal with wave after wave of economic refugees we should focus our efforts on improving the conditions in the places they are fleeing.

People who can afford to feed their kids and buy property near their families have less incentive to sneak into Georgia to process chicken carcasses for a hundred bucks a ton as a “contractor”.

Somebody around here refularly closes their posts with “always follow the money”…and that seems quite appropriate here.

 

[Magyars]

 

[indyblue]

The best border wall the US can have is an economically successful Mexico.

US consumers have spent half a century “pulling China out of poverty” to the detriment of both American workers and the global security landscape…imagine the power that investment might have had in Mexico (and then) South America instead.

US policy is to blame for a significant amount of the issues to our south. If we don‘t want to deal with wave after wave of economic refugees we should focus our efforts on improving the conditions in the places they are fleeing.

People who can afford to feed their kids and buy property near their families have less incentive to sneak into Georgia to process chicken carcasses for a hundred bucks a ton as a “contractor”.

Somebody around here refularly closes their posts with “always follow the money”…and that seems quite appropriate here.

What a bunch of BS. We "give" them plenty of $$ and economic opportunity to improve but their corrupt governments just steal it and p*ss it all away.

It’s not our fault socialism fails every time it runs out of other peoples money.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The best border wall the US can have is an economically successful Mexico.

US consumers have spent half a century “pulling China out of poverty” to the detriment of both American workers and the global security landscape…imagine the power that investment might have had in Mexico (and then) South America instead.

US policy is to blame for a significant amount of the issues to our south. If we don‘t want to deal with wave after wave of economic refugees we should focus our efforts on improving the conditions in the places they are fleeing.

People who can afford to feed their kids and buy property near their families have less incentive to sneak into Georgia to process chicken carcasses for a hundred bucks a ton as a “contractor”.

Somebody around here refularly closes their posts with “always follow the money”…and that seems quite appropriate here.

Wait, so "pulling China out of poverty" was bad. But "pulling Mexico out of poverty" is good? That sounds a lot like the "They just didn't do socialism right that time" argument.

 

[DadSmith]

Reports of drug money in Mexican politics shake up relations with US

U.S.-Mexico relations were rattled Wednesday by reports of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation into drug money connections to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s…

thehill.com

 

[Leadeye]

The best border wall the US can have is an economically successful Mexico.

US consumers have spent half a century “pulling China out of poverty” to the detriment of both American workers and the global security landscape…imagine the power that investment might have had in Mexico (and then) South America instead.

US policy is to blame for a significant amount of the issues to our south. If we don‘t want to deal with wave after wave of economic refugees we should focus our efforts on improving the conditions in the places they are fleeing.

People who can afford to feed their kids and buy property near their families have less incentive to sneak into Georgia to process chicken carcasses for a hundred bucks a ton as a “contractor”.

Somebody around here refularly closes their posts with “always follow the money”…and that seems quite appropriate here.

I spent a good part of my life working in Mexico at various places during the 90s. This country has put plenty of investment there at the expense of Americans. It wasn't pleasant, especially as I had family members losing good factory jobs at places like RCA, but when you have skills, your employer sends you where it thinks you are needed.

People I worked with in places along the border and further south all liked the idea of working in America, but were not interested in border jumping to do it. I don't see those people in the pictures from Texas I see today. It looks like the entire third world and this country simply doesn't have the resources to hand out that will bring the third world up to American standards of living. It's a cold reality.

Back in the 70s when I was at IU a professor asked the class why Americans were entitled to the standard of living they had as it was unfair to the rest of the world. I answered, "haven't we earned it"? It was a popular concept with academia back then and still appears to be today.

Reality isn't "fair", or what is sometimes defined as "fair", if you want an answer as to why one "fair" trumps another, you always follow the money. I didn't make that rule, it's governed the affairs of the world since time began.

 

[Ingomike]

The best border wall the US can have is an economically successful Mexico.

US consumers have spent half a century “pulling China out of poverty” to the detriment of both American workers and the global security landscape…imagine the power that investment might have had in Mexico (and then) South America instead.

US policy is to blame for a significant amount of the issues to our south. If we don‘t want to deal with wave after wave of economic refugees we should focus our efforts on improving the conditions in the places they are fleeing.

People who can afford to feed their kids and buy property near their families have less incentive to sneak into Georgia to process chicken carcasses for a hundred bucks a ton as a “contractor”.

Somebody around here refularly closes their posts with “always follow the money”…and that seems quite appropriate here.

This post completely ignores that the vast majority are NOT Mexicans.

 

[LeftyGunner]

What a bunch of BS. We "give" them plenty of $$ and economic opportunity to improve but their corrupt governments just steal it and p*ss it all away.

It’s not our fault socialism fails every time it runs out of other peoples money.

I think you are missing my point. I am not referring to direct aid, I am referring to US policy that influences international commerce.

Rather than spending 50 years investing in China’s massive growth, I am asking you to imagine if US capital had chosen to direct that investment in central and southern America instead.

China is a communist enemy half way across the planet, Mexico is a democratic neighbor that shares a border with us. To me, the investment seems obviously misplaced.

Wait, so "pulling China out of poverty" was bad. But "pulling Mexico out of poverty" is good? That sounds a lot like the "They just didn't do socialism right that time" argument.

My argument has has nothing to do with socialism, it has to do with public policy and private investment.…and it’s just an a possible alternate scenario I am asking you to imagine, not an attack on capitalism.

What if the capital was spent on our neighbors, rather than our enemies?

This post completely ignores that the vast majority are NOT Mexicans.

It does not. Every nation on the planet is concerned with their own security. Wealthy nations can afford better security. An economically prosperous Mexico is more capable to act as a partner in North American security than a liability.

It requires a willingness to engage with the idea, at which you automatically balk because it comes from me.

US economic policy has spent the last 50 years helping an enemy become an economic powerhouse…i am asking you to imagine what things might have looked like if US policy had directed that investment more domestically.

Not everything has to be a fight, Mike.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

My argument has has nothing to do with socialism, it has to do with public policy and private investment.…and it’s just an a possible alternate scenario I am asking you to imagine, not an attack on capitalism.

I wasn't saying it was an argument in favor of socialism. I'm saying it's the same type of argument. What makes you think that Mexico would've become our friend, while China did not?
And we've already invested billions in Mexico - see NAFTA. Did that help the US? Clearly it did not.

It does not. Every nation on the planet is concerned with their own security. Wealthy nations can afford better security.

Why do you suppose that wealthy nations can afford better security? Could it be because they invested in their own security and prosperity rather than letting drug cartels take over their government?

 

[Ingomike]

I think you are missing my point. I am not referring to direct aid, I am referring to US policy that influences international commerce.

Rather than spending 50 years investing in China’s massive growth, I am asking you to imagine if US capital had chosen to direct that investment in central and southern America instead.

China is a communist enemy half way across the planet, Mexico is a democratic neighbor that shares a border with us. To me, the investment seems obviously misplaced.



My argument has has nothing to do with socialism, it has to do with public policy and private investment.…and it’s just an a possible alternate scenario I am asking you to imagine, not an attack on capitalism.

What if the capital was spent on our neighbors, rather than our enemies?



It does not. Every nation on the planet is concerned with their own security. Wealthy nations can afford better security. An economically prosperous Mexico is more capable to act as a partner in North American security than a liability.

It requires a willingness to engage with the idea, at which you automatically balk because it comes from me.

US economic policy has spent the last 50 years helping an enemy become an economic powerhouse…i am asking you to imagine what things might have looked like if US policy had directed that investment more domestically.

Not everything has to be a fight, Mike.

My point was Mexicans are not the majority of illegals coming in, they are from South America, Africa, the Middle East, and about any third world country you can think of. This massive invasion is to overwhelm the traditions of America and marginalize conservatives and conservative thinking…