No. Again, some in sanctuary cities believe that but completely open borders is not what a sanctuary city policy is. Simply, it means local law enforcement does not carry out the duties of ICE without a warrant or local court order. In the absence of a warrant or court order, using local resources to enforce ICE duties is entirely voluntary per the 4th amendment.
In response to this stunt? Probably burn a flag?
I disagree with you about some details, but broadly speaking I agree that the states that bear the most burden should have the most say about the burden.
The stunt is a way of pointing to that, but it’s still a stunt, meant to upset your opponent. Who is also your partner, who you hate and who hates you.
1 Like
As for sanctuary cities, I thought it was supposed to be a selfish way of dealing with their own high immigrant populations (specifically aimed at crime). And I would assume also that they attract immigrants from Texas, which would reduce the burden on Texas.
So I don’t think we can say if the existence of sanctuary cities is a net increase or net decrease on Texas?
But that’s all sort of an aside from the basic fact that some Americans financially support more immigrants than others.
Also, I agree we should, generally, listen to the people who are upset about this.
We as a country have indeed been “doing something about it” for decades. Spending to secure the border has dramatically increased, practically every single year.
• U.S. - enacted border patrol program budget 1990-2020 | Statista.
There have been multiple bipartisan efforts to improve/extend the border wall in past administrations. Even the Biden administration who is repeatedly accused of doing nothing is improving the wall in one of the more high trafficked locations:
US to fill border wall gaps at open area near Yuma, Arizona | AP News
Our policy for ages was to build physical barriers in areas where crossings were likely, rely on natural barriers where needed (this was Trump policy too despite the rhetoric), and use electronic surveillance and human resources for border security where otherwise more practical. We are still doing all of this. Claiming a giant wall needed to get built across the entire border at extreme expense is what many balked at (me included) as impractical and unnecessary. Visa overstays have exceeded illegal border crossings for many years. Those worried about illegal immigration should be more concerned about that, but it’s generally crickets there.
For all the Trump rhetoric, his admin only built around 50 miles of new wall where none existed. A huge expanse of new wall was not the most practical use of funds, where resources are better spent improving/replacing wall where it already was in the high trafficked areas. That’s exactly what they did despite the outlandish public claims.
Wanting a more secure border does not make someone racist. Calling all asylum seekers murderers and rapists seems racist to me personally. Tying the fentanyl problem to refugees or building a wall can lean that way to me too in some cases. We do have a real problem with fentanyl entering the US from Mexico, but it’s coming in via the transportation network rather than on the backs of refugees. Stemming the flow of drugs generally requires resources be devoted towards ports of entry. It of course does come at a cost of slowing down the transit of people and goods.
5 Likes
Do you have links for this? The people in Martha’s Vineyard stepped up big time to clean up Desantis’ mess in this most recent debacle. Mostly what I hear from the liberals is that they would like to address the problem with funding for more immigration lawyers and having a better plan for moving asylum seekers to other parts of the country. Giving the cities some advance notice so they can set up some infrastructure to take care of these people would help, and there are already plans in the works for that.
The stunts pulled by Abbott and Desantis draw attention to the problem but they don’t help work toward a solution. These are not serious people acting in good faith - I don’t understand why you lend them any credence at all.
I can’t help but wonder if the border wasn’t pourous and overwhelmed with migrants, then if the agents currently overloaded with assisting, catching, and processing these migrants were instead able to focus on securing and controlling the transportation network (without your “cost of slowing down the transit of people and goods”), would we put a big dent in the human trafficking and fentanyl problems?
Maybe some impact, but fentanyl was certainly pouring in before the current surge of migration.
If they broke the law, then certainly they should be arrested. They don’t get to use their privilege as white male governors to do whatever the fuck they want.
2 Likes
I honestly think the stunt of shipping asylum seekers north greatly increased the level of dialogue regarding this, and the disproportionate impact on border communities. I believe that serious people should respond to problems with thoughtful solutions even if the method with which the problems were spotlighted was clownish and/or disingenuous.
2 Likes
I am not a lawyer, but I would think that once they have paperwork in hand releasing them until their hearing date (currently a 4-5 year wait, as I understand it), such migrants would be free to travel across state lines.
If that weren’t the case, the border states ought to be suing the feds for the cost of providing services to such people while waiting those 4-5 years.
Like I said above, I don’t like what the governors’ stunts…but they aren’t wrong about the situation being bad and in need of remedy.
I hope you are correct, and that the adults can continue their work regardless of the governors’ tantrums.
100%
1 Like
I agree. I’ll even go so far as to observe that, given the current climate in the US, I suspect that such clownish/disingenuous tactics are probably the most effective way they could spotlight the problem.
1 Like
Complete disagree. The “level” of dialogue went down, not up. This thread, evidence 1. Nothing on proposals, just smack talk about the politics. Doesn’t advance anything.
The big negative: where the union should be listening to recommendations on best practices, we instead get a clown show. It can only harm the credibility of deSantis and Abbot.
This got me wondering about the proportionate burden of unauthorized immigrants by state. One of the more recent studies I could find that was well documented is a little stale (2016), but it’s interesting anyway:
Not surprising to see CA and TX high on the list, but some of the others might surprise you. For example, MD, NJ, and NV have a higher % than AZ or NM. Also MA=FL.
2 Likes
That’s a Trump thing. There are a lot of people that know good and well that increased immigration control isn’t going to stop drugs from being sold on the streets of America and they still want immigration control.
There have been lots of GOP politicians tying fentanyl to those seeking asylum. There were multiple GOP politicians that complained about fentanyl seizures at the border. Others like Vance are still publicly promoting the “great replacement theory”.
1 Like
I’m curious what you mean by this. As in, are you referring to a specific conversation somewhere?
So far all I’ve seen is outrage from liberals that the governors are using people as trash to be dumped on a lawn, and Republican joy at the idea of liberals outrage while intentionally misinterpreting the outrage… But maybe I’m missing the right news or whatever.
I assumed he was speculating about some subreddit.
So, a bad politician does a bad thing to call attention to a legitimate issue and pander to the worse inclinations of his voters. Okay.
Replace ‘level’ with ‘volume’ and I think that was the point. Squeaky wheels and whatnot.