Against their will, or through fraud? Yeah, I’d blame 'em. That would be an unbelievably shitty thing to do to a desperate young woman let alone an innocent newborn.
As long as they are hurting the “right” people.
Allow me to retort.
I guess we could have accepted TFGs position and shot them all in the leg as they tried to cross.
Or built “an electrified, spiked border wall and a snake or alligator-infested moat.”
But I don’t think that’s the position of “compassionate” people either.
Congrats, though. Yours was truly a stunningly asinine post.
Your both sideism breaks down in that pro-choicers don’t hate women, while Republicans do hate immigrants.
Every analogy breaks down at some point. My point is that the shipping-immigrants stunt is about “put your money where your mouth is.”
Note that I’m not endorsing such stunts. I’m just saying that they make sense in a way. Like someone who brags about how much he cares about the homeless - then people might say, “Well, here you go, 50 homeless people, on your doorstep, do what you said you’d do!”
That would never happen. Remember, these states are not “pro-life”, they’re pro-birth. Once the kid is born, they’re considered a parasite on society.
Well, some of that is trying to link up refugees with relatives that are already in the US, where that applies. If someone arrives in New York City but has an extended family in, say Wisconsin is there a problem with the government assisting them in getting to said relatives in Wisconsin?
It’s also to disperse refugees so they don’t wind up concentrated right on the border because they just don’t have the resources to go further. Hard to get a bus ticket to Wisconsin if you have no money.
And finally, for refugees that don’t have any family in the US they might still benefit from being located in areas with a similar ethnic/language/cultural/religious group who have already set up resources to help people of their background adjust to life in the US and navigate the various legal, social, and employment structures that are part of life here.
So it’s not malicious. Of course the execution of that mission may have all sorts of problems and issues, but it’s not a sinister notion unless you’re in the “all immigrants are bad” camp.
That is an interesting and valid question I will have to leave to the lawyers.
In this instance, it is further complicated by a language barrier. There may be some lying, there may be some misunderstanding/mistranslation, and there might even be some truth involved. I don’t know that level of detail for this issue and like I said, it might be better left to lawyers.
One of my neighbors has suggested a trade, immigrants for homeless.
Yes, but your analogy breaks down at the very first step. The point of this was to hurt people, both immigrants and liberals. That was the whole point. There is nothing analogous to people who are not motivated by the same hatred that drives and defines modern Republican party.
Yes, that makes sense for someone motivated out of hatred to hurt people. If you hate both the homeless and those who care about the homeless, then that’s exactly the sort of thing you would do. If you are not motivated by cruelty, then it’s exactly the sort of thing that you would not do.
According to the political rhetoric I hear from the left (including a crying immigration attorney on NPR today), they are escaping persecution, torture, tribal oppression, etc. If that is true then yes they are (or should be) considered refugees.
If they are not refugees, just foreign nationals that want to live in the US without going through the immigration process, then the real issue is that the immigration system is broken from top to bottom and this is but another symptom showing it must be fixed.
We’ve thought about retaliating by sending all of our crazy people and criminals to Florida and Texas but we’re worried they’ll get elected to Congress.
That’s the issue. If we don’t allow some form of legal immigration, we’re going to have illegal immigration.
People like Abbott, DeSantis, and Trump are all the descendants of people who were allowed to legally immigrate to America. Why do they want to deny the same opportunity to people today?
I’m watching this shitshow on CNN right now. Seems that Martha’s Vineyard has packed them all on a bus, drove that on to a ferry and are shipping them to a National Guard base on Cape Cod.
Haha!
This one breaks down even earlier because there are tons of immigrants in the cities that are calling themselves sanctuary cities. Literally millions. So, if some anti-choice red state already had millions of women and babies and NY sent them 35 more, do you think it would prove anything other than trying to troll the red states?
Those of you defending this obvious trolling on the part of Abbott and Desantis, do you think this is an actual useful policy in terms of reducing the number of people seeking refugee status? Can you lay out the steps? Or, are you also in it for the pwning-the-libs aspect?
I would consider them to be refugees, but I don’t think that they have that as their actual legal status.
Well, yes, that is the real issue. None of these people would be risking death and/or sexual assault while walking through deserts and crossing rivers in the dead of night and then entering illegally in the desperate hope that their case for asylum be granted if our immigration system wasn’t so broken.
Okay, I still don’t love this analogy, but it’s a bit less cruel, and at least the people involved aren’t exactly innocent.
So, Texas loves guns, right? So, anyone picked up on a weapons charge in Chicago is deposited in Roberts County, Texas.
How so? Being a “sanctuary city” just means your local police and other local government agencies aren’t going to help ICE track down undocumented persons. And as we know, ICE doesn’t just target recent arrivals, they also are happy to evict undocumented people who’ve been here since childhood, which is a good part of the motivation for being a sanctuary city.
So where’s the implied commitment of a sanctuary city to assist every other city’s or state’s recent arrivals from south of the border? I’m not seeing it.
To answer the first question, as an American covered by the Constitution I have a right to travel and “privileges and immunities” which trumps their veto power.
To answer the second, I will point out the difference that the refugees are not choosing to migrate to Florida, Texas, California, Massachusetts or any other place. To me this is a violation of state sovereignty but then again I am a Federalist and I recognize that under our current legal system it may be perfectly legal - 10th Amendment be damned. Which is why I used the term “fair” rather than “legal”. The analog to your first question would be if the refugees chose to move to Florida could the state send them out? The answer (if the refugees have the same rights under the Constitution) is a clear no.
So far, at least, every single person transported on Abbott’s buses and DeSantis’ planes have, in fact, had legal status to be here. Not much difference between “asylum” and “refugee” and in fact there’s considerable overlap. The Venn diagram approaches a perfect circle.
I think one flaw in the Martha’s Vineyard stunt was the notion that it was somehow JUST elites that live/vacation there. There are immigrant communities already there. And I’ve heard nothing about what elites were there recoiling in horror from the migrants. It just didn’t have the effect Abbott and DeSantis were hoping for.
Martha’s Vineyard doesn’t have the infrastructure or resources to provide more than emergency food and shelter to these people, nor is there sufficient affordable housing for them on the island.
Afghanistan refugees were also temporarily housed on National Guard bases until they could be processed and relocated through established migrant programs. I don’t see this as being any different. Or would you prefer these people to sleep on cots in a community center for weeks on end, or even months?
Actually, there are still several thousand Afghan refugees on military bases in the US last I heard. It is not at all an ideal situation, but thanks to the GOP a lot of the migrant assistance groups in this country were de-funded - which, by the way, did NOTHING to stop the influx of people because, frankly, living on a US national guard base is still better than starving in Venezuela or trying to live in a bombed-out shell of a building or any of the other scenarios people are trying to flee.
Given the world’s increasing instability this will only get worse. We can jumped up and down like spoiled brats, pout, stamp our feet, and whine like assholes about people wanting to move here by the millions, or we can accept that people WILL find a way to get here and come up with a real plan on how to deal with the situation.
I absolutely agree. We need and immigration policy that makes sense.