Be kinde to folk. This changeth the whole habitat.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 4
BREAKING: Sources in TX Governor Greg Abbott’s office tell me TX is now *flying* migrants to sanctuary cities, with the first flight of 120 migrants landing at Chicago’s O’Hare airport last night after taking off from El Paso, TX.
https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/1737544822...
No. of Recommendations: 3
More, please!
Now do Chicago and Boston.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Maybe it makes you feel good, but it doesn't remotely address the problem. The problem that albaby so patiently laid out for you. Apparently your solution to a lack of congressional action is to fly migrants to Chicago and Boston? We can't know for sure since you didn't answer his question, but we may infer.
C'mon. I expected more from a well-educated person. This is a simpleton's solution, right up with "hey, let's build a big wall". And you're not a simpleton.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Maybe it makes you feel good, but it doesn't remotely address the problem. The problem that albaby so patiently laid out for you. Apparently your solution to a lack of congressional action is to fly migrants to Chicago and Boston? We can't know for sure since you didn't answer his question, but we may infer.
1. If you're going to bray on about being a "sanctuary city" and get lots of Good Feelz then you deserve to live up to your own values. Saul Alinsky taught us that making folks live up to their own values is important.
2. Fine. I'll go back and look at the thread. I answered his question - I thought - but that doesn't seem to be enough.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Regarding point 1:
That's just spiteful. It still doesn't change the legal situation we've been discussing. It's just "you like immigrants so much, YOU take them". Not really helpful at all.
Regarding point 2:
You gave albaby a one-line answer. He then reiterated his challenge of "what specifically would you do" regarding enforcement given the constraints he outlined. The "easy" answer is "change the constraints". But you actually have to do that first, which isn't going to happen anytime soon (which is why this has stymied us for a few decades now). Until you "change the constraints", you have to work within them. Which is -as I understood it- what albaby was challenging you with.
No. of Recommendations: 4
That's just spiteful. It still doesn't change the legal situation we've been discussing. It's just "you like immigrants so much, YOU take them". Not really helpful at all.
Yes, it is. These same voters vote in democrats who are fine and dandy with an out of control border...so long as it doesn't affect them.
There's a level of sociopathy there that needs to be corrected. The only way to do that is through shared pain.
No. of Recommendations: 1
By the way, I'm not trying to flog you. If you have something albaby or I (or anyone else) hasn't thought of, great! I genuinely would love to hear it.
I think we need to change the constraints, which means an overhaul of the whole system. Which requires congressional action, which they have been incapable of doing for 20 years or more. They've just nibbled at a few problems, like the DREAMERS. While helpful, it doesn't address the larger problems.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I don't think most Dems are "fine and dandy with an out of control border". In fact, probably none of them. Even the ones that want open borders (very very few Dems) want the folks legalized. The rest of us want some more efficient, fast, humane system. Meanwhile, the Reps seem to want to keep everyone out, make the system inefficient and inhumane, and generally make it as difficult as possible. Not necessarily for spite, but just to attempt to "keep them away" without investing in a better system.
Those competing values are preventing a solution, or even a compromise in many instances.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Maybe it makes you feel good, but it doesn't remotely address the problem. The problem that albaby so patiently laid out for you. Apparently your solution to a lack of congressional action is to fly migrants to Chicago and Boston? We can't know for sure since you didn't answer his question, but we may infer. - 1pg
------------------
No. Sharing the immigrant impact creates incentives to solve the problem that otherwise would not exist. Look to how much Mayor Adams has become enlightened since Abbott's busses started rolling.
Thanks to albaby, I now understand what the opposing forces are that produce immigration gridlock. tIt If the only solution is legislation, the sooner or later, one side or the other, will gain the presidency and solid majorities in both houses of Congress. Then that irresistible coalition can implement its vision either rooted in "as close to open borders as possible" vs "stop the tsunami".
I know which side I will be voting for and it seems these days a lot of Americans are feeling that way too, thanks in large part to Abbott's and Desantis' share the wealth programs.
No. of Recommendations: 8
If the only solution is legislation, the sooner or later, one side or the other, will gain the presidency and solid majorities in both houses of Congress.
Ugh - one of the most destructive ideas in modern politics. I think there's so many problems with our government that can be laid at the feet of this one notion. The belief that one day, one side or the other will have enough votes to impose their will on the other.
Not only do I think that's not true, but I think it's what has led modern politics into stalemate and gridlock. If your political base is convinced that one day you'll be able to get a whole loaf, how can you possibly reach compromises to get half a loaf?
The reason that immigration has been broken for forty years is because both sides have big swatches of their base that are convinced that one day, they'll get everything they want on the issue. So any compromise - even if that compromise would alleviate real problems today - is a betrayal.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The reason that immigration has been broken for forty years is because both sides have big swatches of their base that are convinced that one day, they'll get everything they want on the issue. So any compromise - even if that compromise would alleviate real problems today - is a betrayal.
Exactly. But to me it looks like they can point to the 2d Amendment as a success story for this view. Bruen requiring historical analogs for gun measures seems a totally unworkable standard. And we're stuck with that until some reinterpretation comes along - not in my lifetime. I'm more than willing to compromise on the border as long as we do something - but I hope it will be something workable, practical, and HUMANE.
I noticed Biden just put out proposals for guns safety which I have to look at. I thought maybe approaching the problem from this rout might work as we aren't proposing limitations on guns. I'd like to see a proposal on solving the border problem.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The point with migrants -> sanctuary cities is to tighten the screws and let "them" feel the pain too !
They will bend as the budgets strain and low income voters get angrier and angrier.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Not only do I think that's not true, but I think it's what has led modern politics into stalemate and gridlock. If your political base is convinced that one day you'll be able to get a whole loaf, how can you possibly reach compromises to get half a loaf?
This.
You should get a fifth point on your shrewdness star just for that statement.
