Cite for any democrat ever suggesting open borders?
I’m aware of Hillary saying in 2015 that she dreamt of open borders for trade.
Who has advocated for an open border for people?
I would say it’s true that Biden had a (slightly) more compassionate policy than Trump, and that and the post-covid surge probably were significant factors in the number going up. However, if we’re giving him blame for the numbers going up, he should get credit for bringing them back down – having to equivocate and say it was an election year shows you’re being partisan on this, you can’t just analyze the facts objectively.
It’s a hard thing to “cite” per se, as it’s an analysis. My analysis was back in post 687.
And the next surge started in mid-2020. As I said.
This isn’t remotely true, which explains the weasel words in it. “Appears to”, “a lot of people”, something akin”…
People didn’t oppose Trump’s border policy because they wanted an open border, despite the right-wing false narrative about this. People opposed it because it was fucking stupid.
“Just build a wall” sounds obvious but it’s an extremely inefficient and ineffective (and expensive) method of border control. The majority of illegal immigrants don’t cross secretly cross the southern border, many do so in ways that a wall wouldn’t stop, and for those faced with a wall there are these things called ladders and ropes.
And Trump’s policies were largely bluster. Hundreds of millions spent and very little achieved. During the 2024 campaign he stood in front of a section of unfinished wall and declared it a failure of Biden while pointing to a section of finished wall and claimed credit - except that the unfinished wall was from his presidency and the finished one from Obama’s.
Trump’s policies were also (like most of his policies) incredibly cruel. Children who were literally with their families (including nursing infants) were taken and placed into the US adoption system (via private agencies owned by Trump cronies), while other children as young as 3 faced deportation hearings on their own and with no translators or carers present.
Speaking of Obama, let’s recall that in 2013 a massive border security bill was introduced to Congress and the GOP blocked it - not because it was bad but because the GOP strategy was to block anything Obama proposed.
Also not true, although I’m enjoying the irony of your “It did happen and if it didn’t it’s bad” position.
Really not true.
The “majority of people” - which seems to include you - believe that the “border was open”, that there was an “invasion” in progress, that there was a “migrant crime wave”, that “Venezuelan gangs had taken over American cities”, that immigrants were “eating pets”. And the reason they believed and continue to believe these things - none of which are even close to being true - is
You are attempting to claim that the election result was a referendum on Biden’s actual immigration policy, which even you don’t appear to fully know, when the reality is that it was heavily skewed by the sort of propaganda above.
Again - not his actual policies.
Because he was afraid of the exact public perception that you keep echoing.
The administration that, as I showed, brought illegal immigration dramatically down again? No, it was definitely the “right wing lies” thing.
Who did you have in mind, specifically? Must be a person who actually exists.
Or she could have done what she actually did, which is to use the powers the US has to address economic and safety issues in other countries. Which is a process that actually works, unlike “just build a wall”.
To quote a different thread:
But what the Republicans were damning her for was not doing a meaningless performative photo op at the border, as if they expected her personally to turn back all crossers.
The Federal government did do some of this (which, funnily enough, the GOP complained about). Whereas randomly dumping asylum seekers with no notice and no resources under false pretenses out of cruelty and spite, like Abbott and DeSantis did, is not a policy they should have adopted.
Did you actually read the article? The President has some discretion to re-distribute funds that have already been allocated by Congress. Which is a point most of that article makes. It also points out that attempting to do so outside of a narrow set of circumstances is legally dubious, and that the previous Trump administration’s stance was effectively “We’re doing it anyway - so sue us”.
Do you have a cite for that? Not because I don’t believe you but because I don’t have a clue what Biden, paroling, and migrants mean when put together into a sentence.
Sure, there are behavior extremes from some gay people. But there are behavior extremes from het people all over the place. Think Mardi Gras and straight hookup culture and college culture of drinking to excess and having wild sex.
Not everyone does those things, and some people disapprove of them, but those are far more mainstream than anything from “gay culture”. The people that disapprove are thought of as “stuffy prigs who should lighten up”.
In other words, not celebrating the extremes of gay behavior and the reaction to that is right in line with not celebrating the extremes of straight behavior and the reactions to that.
The difference is that when it’s “gay culture” behaviors, the response gets framed in terms of all gay people, not some extreme behaviors.
Just look at his actions the first week in office, you can see descriptions of Trump being a fascist and wanting to end democracy are accurate descriptions. Using those words isn’t the trigger, it’s his words and behaviors that create those perceptions that create the motives.
They don’t need more, they are owned by them.
Oh really? Is there a widespread campaign to end Spring Break party culture? Are there any outspoken complaints that rise to anywhere near the level of complaints against the extreme behaviors of some gay people?
And is there any kind of blanket negativity for hets like there is for gays because of a subset of the group’s behaviors?
Why ? Does the State of Hawaii need to take anti-immigration movements in various European countries into account to decide how to distribute Hawaiian Homelands? If yes, I’m curious as to the reasoning.
So would you say that the same applies to England? An English person who doesn’t have a house is “houseless” but has his home, England; but an English born descendant of more recent immigrants is “homeless” even if he owns property?
I assume you would say this does not apply to England, but if so, why not? Both the English and the Hawaiians have a similar history, in terms of how the cultures first arose. An island or group of islands, already colonized by others who came before, is conquered by a new culture, and the admixture of the old and new culture creates Hawaiian/English people. Interestingly, the two invasions seem to to have happened at a comparable time in history! Although obviously for England this was the last in a chain of invasions while for Hawaii this was one of only a handful of instances.