Democrats scream "NIMBY!" as illegals are sent into their communities

[seanD]

But, apparently, that doesn't count unless the Democrats actually state that that is their policy position!

I'm sure rogue can scrape up prominent Dems openly endorsing open borders (possibly members of the "squad"). I know they're out there because I recall seeing them being endorsed, I just haven't documented them.

[Starlight]

But, apparently, that doesn't count unless the Democrats actually state that that is their policy position!

Saying that someone is cultish about a position they don't even espouse, is accelerating over the distant horizon of lies and delusions.

It's one thing to theorize that perhaps they're secretly in favor of a position they don't espouse. You could perhaps argue or reason out that indirectly their other expressed views or policies imply that secretly they must have some position other than what they say they have.

So if Sean wanted to have a position like, "I reckon many liberals are more in favor of immigration than they generally let on, and that despite Dems having fairly strict border policies and fairly strict rhetoric against immigrants, e.g. Harris' "Don't Come" statement, I really think many of them secretly in their heart of hearts are actually fine with more immigrants coming", that might be plausible. And we could either have a debate about whether his logic was right or just ignore that as his personal gut-feelings evidence-free viewpoint.

But when he starts claiming that they're cultishly zealous about a position that's at odds with their express rhetoric and actions, then he needs medication because he's outright asserting something that's simply obviously false.

I know it's part of the tongue-in-cheek US conservative dialog to pretend that Dems support "open borders". But at all times it should be remembered that that is a deliberate lie that conservatives do for political propaganda purposes. Sean seems to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker, without realize it's just deliberately false propaganda.

[Cow Poke]

Saying that someone is cultish about a position they don't even espouse, is accelerating over the distant horizon of lies and delusions.

It's one thing to theorize that perhaps they're secretly in favor of a position they don't espouse. You could perhaps argue or reason out that indirectly their other expressed views or policies imply that secretly they must have some position other than what they say they have.

So if Sean wanted to have a position like, "I reckon many liberals are more in favor of immigration than they generally let on, and that despite Dems having fairly strict border policies and fairly strict rhetoric against immigrants, e.g. Harris' "Don't Come" statement, I really think many of them secretly in their heart of hearts are actually fine with more immigrants coming", that might be plausible. And we could either have a debate about whether his logic was right or just ignore that as his personal gut-feelings evidence-free viewpoint.

But when he starts claiming that they're cultishly zealous about a position that's at odds with their express rhetoric and actions, then he needs medication because he's outright asserting something that's simply obviously false.

Wow --- so, in your world, cults always proclaim very clearly what they actually believe! Cool!!!

Somebody should have told David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith....

Let's try it this way ---- provide a list of top Democrats who are calling for a secure border. BETTER ---- any liberal who's actually doing anything about it, or even acknowledging we have a major problem.

[seanD]

Saying that someone is cultish about a position they don't even espouse, is accelerating over the distant horizon of lies and delusions.

It's one thing to theorize that perhaps they're secretly in favor of a position they don't espouse. You could perhaps argue or reason out that indirectly their other expressed views or policies imply that secretly they must have some position other than what they say they have.

So if Sean wanted to have a position like, "I reckon many liberals are more in favor of immigration than they generally let on, and that despite Dems having fairly strict border policies and fairly strict rhetoric against immigrants, e.g. Harris' "Don't Come" statement, I really think many of them secretly in their heart of hearts are actually fine with more immigrants coming", that might be plausible. And we could either have a debate about whether his logic was right or just ignore that as his personal gut-feelings evidence-free viewpoint.

But when he starts claiming that they're cultishly zealous about a position that's at odds with their express rhetoric and actions, then he needs medication because he's outright asserting something that's simply obviously false.

I know it's part of the tongue-in-cheek US conservative dialog to pretend that Dems support "open borders". But at all times it should be remembered that that is a deliberate lie that conservatives do for political propaganda purposes. Sean seems to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker, without realize it's just deliberately false propaganda.

Yeah Kamala Harris' press op "Don't come" in Guatemala to Guatemalans after the damage had already been done. It would be like throwing a stack of $100 bills all over downtown LA and telling a section of the homeless about the money "Don't pick it up," and a dummy like you concluding "See, she told the homeless not to pick it up."

[Starlight]

I'm sure rogue can scrape up prominent Dems openly endorsing open borders (possibly members of the "squad"). I know they're out there because I recall seeing them being endorsed, I just haven't documented them.

Maybe you dreamt it? There's video of Bernie being asked if he supports open borders, and he says of course not and that it's a libertarian idea not a leftist one.

AFAIK the only poster in these forums who's pro open borders is Gondwanaland who's a self-professed libertarian.

[Cow Poke]

...I know it's part of the tongue-in-cheek US conservative dialog to pretend that Dems support "open borders". But at all times it should be remembered that that is a deliberate lie that conservatives do for political propaganda purposes. Sean seems to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker, without realize it's just deliberately false propaganda.

I see you edited to add this part after I already answered.

You wanna talk about LIES?

Look at the official transcript of the White House Press Briefing...

Q Okay. And I want to ask you: On the topic of immigration, the Vice President said to my colleague, Chuck Todd, over the weekend, “The border is secure.” She also caveated that to say we also have a broken immigration system and talked about the need to fix that. But does the White House stand by those comments that the border is secure?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What we stand by is that we’re doing everything that we can to make sure that we follow the process that’s been put forth. That’s why we have historic funding to do just that, to make sure that — you know, to make sure that — to make sure that the folks that we encounter at the border be removed or expelled.

And again, the facts are: More individuals encountered at the border will be removed or expelled this year than in any previous year. But that’s the work that’s —

Q Is the border secure, Karine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — that we have been doing.

Q Is the border secure?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just going to refer back to the Vice President. We agree with her. She is saying that there’s a lot of work to do. Right? She also said that in that very statement. We agree that the border is secure, but there is still more work to be done.

Q But I guess, you know, the question becomes how you can make that argument when DHS has said it’s bracing for these potentially 2 million migrants to come, which would be a record, in the coming months.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, we’ll say this: Rebuilding the immigration system, especially one that was decimated under the previous administration, won’t happen overnight. We’re not going to flip a switch and get that done. That’s what I said at the beginning. We know that there’s work to be done, but we’re doing the work to make sure that — that we remove and expel folks who are coming here who are being encountered at the border.

"The Border is Secure" is an outright lie.

[Ronson]

Maybe you dreamt it? There's video of Bernie being asked if he supports open borders, and he says of course not and that it's a libertarian idea not a leftist one.

AFAIK the only poster in these forums who's pro open borders is Gondwanaland who's a self-professed libertarian.

"Open borders" has taken on a new meaning since it was endorsed by the Libertarian Party. You may want to ask Gond how he defines it. They certainly never supported an unvetted free-for-all.

[seanD]

Maybe you dreamt it? There's video of Bernie being asked if he supports open borders, and he says of course not and that it's a libertarian idea not a leftist one.

That's was what I argued in the post you became all unhinged about. They ONCE supported closed borders I said and even supported a wall. Bernie even argued it was a conspiracy theory to keep them open. Now they've completely changed their view and call it racist.

[Starlight]

Let's try it this way ---- provide a list of top Democrats who are calling for a secure border.

All Democratic leadership for the last few decades have been viciously harsh on immigrants, to the point of human rights violations. This has been an ongoing reason for angst from progressive commentators who want to see immigrants treated humanely.

Just because the Republicans have been next-level psychopaths on the issue, and ratcheted the inhumanity up to 11, doesn't mean Democrats haven't been nasty themselves. When humanitarians rightly complained about Trump putting people in cages, conservatives did point out that Obama had done some of that too, albeit to a lesser degree.

Kamala's message for would-be immigrants was unambiguously "Don't come. Don't come. Don't come." Meanwhile the Biden administration retained the Trump-era policy of immediate deportation for apprehended immigrants.

To be clear, I am personally fine with the US having tight border security and deporting illegal immigrants. I also think it's important to do it as humanely as possible.

I don't see much daylight between Republicans and Dems on actual immigration - neither side supports illegal immigration and both are doing their best to keep immigrants out of the country. The Dems do tend to want to treat immigrants slightly better than Republicans, and that tends to be pretty much the whole difference.

Dems, when they had a chance under Obama opted not to pass a 'path to citizenship' for illegal immigrants, meaning illegal immigrants can never reach a point in their lives where they can vote in the US. Making the whole conspiracy theory that the Dems want illegals to enter the country and then vote for them, pretty hilariously stupid.

[Cow Poke]

All Democratic leadership for the last few decades have been viciously harsh on immigrants, to the point of human rights violations. This has been an ongoing reason for angst from progressive commentators who want to see immigrants treated humanely.

Just because the Republicans have been next-level psychopaths on the issue, and ratcheted the inhumanity up to 11, doesn't mean Democrats haven't been nasty themselves. When humanitarians rightly complained about Trump putting people in cages, conservatives did point out that Obama had done some of that too, albeit to a lesser degree.

Kamala's message for would-be immigrants was unambiguously "Don't come. Don't come. Don't come." Meanwhile the Biden administration retained the Trump-era policy of immediate deportation for apprehended immigrants.

To be clear, I am personally fine with the US having tight border security and deporting illegal immigrants. I also think it's important to do it as humanely as possible.

I don't see much daylight between Republicans and Dems on actual immigration - neither side supports illegal immigration and both are doing their best to keep immigrants out of the country. The Dems do tend to want to treat immigrants slightly better than Republicans, and that tends to be pretty much the whole difference.

Dems, when they had a chance under Obama opted not to pass a 'path to citizenship' for illegal immigrants, meaning illegal immigrants can never reach a point in their lives where they can vote in the US. Making the whole conspiracy theory that the Dems want illegals to enter the country and then vote for them, pretty hilariously stupid.

Wow --- there's so much wrong here I don't even know where to start. And I gotta get up early, so I'm gonna hit the rack.

One of these days, I'd actually like to visit your planet -- is it in our solar system?

g'nite

[seanD]

Wow --- there's so much wrong here I don't even know where to start. And I gotta get up early, so I'm gonna hit the rack.

One of these days, I'd actually like to visit your planet -- is it in our solar system?

g'nite

He's spouting information he's touting as a matter of fact with no sources, so that's definitely a signal to bow out.

[Starlight]

"The Border is Secure" is an outright lie.

I disagree. There is clearly a great deal of security on the border, perhaps more than there has ever been in all of US history. So to the extent that a border that big can ever be secured, it has been.

If your idea is that some immigrants are still managing to get past the security, and therefore the border isn't secure, then I would say by your standards it's not humanly possible for a border to ever be secure. By those standards not even the East Germany border was 'secure' when they had a wall guarded by machine gunners and yet people were still smuggled back and forth.

So if you have impossible standards, no border can ever be secure and the words 'the border is secure' can never mean anything. But if you mean that there is a great deal of security on the border which substantially restricts the movement of people over it, and catches a large percentage of those who cross illegally, then indeed the border can be, and is, secure.

It seems to me that in order to take offence to the White House Press Secretary's words here you have to be prepared to use a standard so impossible to meet that no border in world history has ever met it and which makes the words meaningless.

[seanD]

I disagree. There is clearly a great deal of security on the border, perhaps more than there has ever been in all of US history. So to the extent that a border that big can ever be secured, it has been.

If your idea is that some immigrants are still managing to get past the security, and therefore the border isn't secure, then I would say by your standards it's not humanly possible for a border to ever be secure. By those standards not even the East Germany border was 'secure' when they had a wall guarded by machine gunners and yet people were still smuggled back and forth.

So if you have impossible standards, no border can ever be secure and the words 'the border is secure' can never mean anything. But if you mean that there is a great deal of security on the border which substantially restricts the movement of people over it, and catches a large percentage of those who cross illegally, then indeed the border can be, and is, secure.

It seems to me that in order to take offence to the White House Press Secretary's words here you have to be prepared to use a standard so impossible to meet that no border in world history has ever met it and which makes the words meaningless.

Who are you going to believe: misinformation spewing New Zealand boy, or an actual border officer?

Border Patrol Head Testifies That Biden “No Consequences” Policy Has Caused Border Crisis

“In my experience, we have seen increases when there are no consequences,” Ortiz said during the deposition, adding “There is an assumption that if migrant populations are told that there is a potential that they may be released, that, yes, you can see increases.”

“So, it will increase at an exponential rate. Is that what is being suggested here?” the attorney further probed.

“Well, I do think it will increase, yeah,” responded Ortiz.

The attorney also pointed to a spring 2021 memo that disclosed Biden’s immigration policies, asking Ortiz “Since President Biden was elected, does this document indicate that aliens illegally entering the United States perceive that they will be able to enter and remain in the United States?”

“Yes,” Ortiz replied.

The guy I WON'T trust is the ignoramus from another country trying to school Americans about our border security.

[rogue06]

I haven't seen a single quote from anyone on Martha's Vineyard during this entire saga that would express or endorse any view remotely close to that. So I have to assume that such cartoons are based entirely on your own racism.

As they say, action speaks louder than words.

In spite of boasting that they are a sanctuary city and placing signs all around town so that anyone visiting will see just how woke they are, when a mere hand full of immigrants show up the residents go into full panic mode literally calling their arrival a "crisis" and put all their efforts into getting them off their island and far away just as fast as they could.

So much for being a sanctuary city.


The only people of color they want on that island are their servants and the Obamas. All others need to be gone by sundown because there is no place for such people there.

[rogue06]

Well I'll comment.

The US currently devotes a lot of resources to keeping the border secure, with Border Patrol, ICE, various walls and fences built over decades, etc. .

I never went further in that at this point you already lost all credibility.