What about 14,000+ that were organized by right wingers in order to bring in more right leaning voters? Would you be ok with that as well?
I heard mention of "organizers" on KTRK the other evening. The logistics of this caravan are quite significant - I wonder who is behind it and funding this? I imagine only about 10 percent will actually make it to the border. I heard a significant number gave up after the first few days. No doubt they will pick up bandwaggoners along the way to help replenish numbers.
I've already stated neither side wants to fix it. THAT's the problem. Both sides would rather continue to use it for political advantage. There HAS been movement for this on the Republican side. Rubio discussed it during the campaign...you can see how much that helped. I am sure there are Democrats on the other side who would support it as well. It is NOT inherently a political issue. It has been made into one. But because it isn't, a compromise proposal (which would only be a compromise because of the political posturing) could be crafted which both sides would agree to...IF both sides decided they wanted to.
ROFL! Good one! I do enjoy your posts, B-bob (and you fit into the 'someone you can discuss things with' group as well)
Fair reasons, but there is a lack of evidence any of this actually happens. As well as the question as to whether these are the real reasons cities adopt these policies. And there is the corresponding issue that these cities provide safe haven for criminal illegal aliens, as discussed in the article, but which would likely counter, if not exceed, any benefits actually accrued. Many of those same cities are now also experiencing issues with their stance. Yes, seems to be a right leaning site, but the statistics are still the statistics, such as: I don't buy into the 'all illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers' hype, BUT the statics on how many illegal immigrants do commit crimes are sobering, and probably directly counter the perspective most pro illegal immigrant people have. Since Texas has been brought up several times in this discourse, here are statistics on crimes by illegal aliens in Texas. There is conflicting evidence on whether illegal aliens commit crimes at a higher or lower rate than legals. I think that's missing the point. Every crime, particularly violent crime committed by illegal aliens is a crime we should not tolerate. Consider, from the Texas statistics: Is anyone here willing to stand up and say those are crimes we should accept? Would you tell the homicide victims that? The assault victims? The kidnap victims? The sexual assault victims? Are these just collateral damage in the fight to avoid controlling our borders, and they should just accept it? You might say 'well, the general population commits these crimes too.' True. BUT the general population has a right to be here. Illegal aliens do not. ALL of these crimes could therefore be considered avoidable. Particularly any of those committed by illegal aliens who had had contact with the police or other law enforcement agencies previously. Hence the push to get all law enforcement agencies engaged in enforcing the border. Removing illegal aliens just because of contact with law enforcement may be farther than necessary..but shouldn't any alien convicted of committing a crime be deported? If not...why not? Also, in order to effectively promote the arguments presented above, statistics showing a similar number of crimes being REDUCED would need to be shown. Do such statistics exist? No. It's inconclusive whether sanctuary policies reduce crime at all. So, the evidence is preponderously in favor of those policies seeking to find and remove illegal aliens, particularly if they've actually committed a crime already. Yes, I figured it would be quite easy to look up. That wasn't the point. The point is "Why is this not being covered?" Isn't their being sponsored a big part of the story? Objectively, the answer to that would have to be 'yes'. Given that such groups have headed to the U.S. before, with no coverage, and now suddenly when they are being sponsored they're getting lots of coverage just makes that all the more the actual story. It would be hard to disprove the notion that this is all political, and demonstrates the political bias of our 'news' agencies. FWIW...your own link seems to back up that perspective...or was that your intent, and the link should have been associated with this statement, and not the above? Also, to my point, you don't say anything about the left wing media ever covering this angle. Which is astute, if perhaps unintentional, and true...and does nothing but indicate my point about their extreme bias in their coverage.
What is that based on? The mexicans they are passing don't want to join a bunch of refugees from Honduras. You think everyone is all the same.
Democrats and Obama proposed many solutions - all rejected by republicans. Republicans benefit from this issue as they can use it as a scare tactic to get voter turnout playing on the racist fears of its base
**** it, I'm tired of arguing with stupid people, let's go full on open borders, the same types of knuckle draggers that push for that kind of thing are going to be the first people suffering as a result. I'm all for the morons of this country getting what they think they want because the negative consequences of doing those things is exactly what they deserve. It'll hit the poor, which means Democrats, the hardest and they'll be the first begging to undo the stupid **** they advocated for.
They are already here and they aren't that big a deal, they kill only about 60 people per year which I guess you could make into a big deal, assault rifles kill right at 200 a year and if you ask someone foolish enough they'll tell you that they are the biggest threat faced by the US today.....but most people would tell you something that kills a statistically insignificant number of people is pretty far down the list of threats.
This isnt a debate. If you want open borders, then you are racist against hispanics already in the US and the living conditions / rights of the poor will get worse.
Has 1 person in this thread even said they support open boarders? I always hear conservatives talking about this BS but have only met a few people in my life that support it.
Seems the large majority of those are doing it through the legal process (applying for asylum at the border)
As an Hispanic, I am not opposed to illegal immigration because I am a racist. I am opposed to our porous border policy as a fiscal conservative. These illegals cost the U.S. and state government billions of dollars in health, education and welfare costs. The small tax monies collected as a result of their presence is miniscule in comparison to our expenditures. My lawn guy, a legal resident from El Salvador (he loves to show his laminated, wallet size copy of his citizenship), hates the influx of "competition." He already votes Republican and loves President Trump. I hope the President closes the borders now to force Mexico to turn the latest invasion force back. I also hope he freezes aid to countries exporting their excess populations with the caveat that, when the aid is unfrozen, 95 percent of the aid has to be spent to benefit the poor.
If you let them borrow your tank, they won't have to. Can you let your pond go unguarded for a few weeks?
