kcar wrote: 
Liar

https://legacy.radioparadise.com/rp_2.php#name=Forums&file=showtopic&p=3947489

https://legacy.radioparadise.com/rp_2.php#name=Forums&file=showtopic&p=3938917

https://legacy.radioparadise.com/rp_2.php#name=Forums&file=showtopic&p=3888583

https://legacy.radioparadise.com/rp_2.php#name=Forums&file=showtopic&p=3878753

.
Do I have to keep going ?

I especially like the second one.  The one in which you directly responded to me ...

 kurtster wrote:

"FNC ? You don't know what that is ? You've got to be kidding after all of these years of bashing it.

Fox News Channel ..."

I've never seen you or anyone else refer to Fox News as FNC. Ever. 

So at least you admit to getting your news from Fox. Do you watch the talking heads like Hannity and Ingraham who openly lied about the 2020 election? Did you miss that whole massive story about Dominion Voting Systems suing Fox News Channel for defamation? Here, Kurt, refresh your memory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(colloquially%20Dominion,its%20corporate%20parent%20Fox%20Corporation.

"Oh and Reagan and immigration which you apparently know nothing about ... but should if you want to speak on this subject with any kind of authority."

So you're hellbent on 30+ year old bipartisan legislation that AFAICT was seen as a win for Reagan at that time. What a shame you have NOTHING TO SAY about the ensuing bipartisan efforts led by Republicans as well as Democrats, efforts that repeatedly got killed by the right wing of the GOP. Hey, if you have a different undersstanding of those efforts, share them with us. But provide evidence and not just your crusty memories which is all you apparently can serve up when you cry about Democrats stiffing Reagan. 

You are tiresome, you are predictable and you are apparently incapable of supporting your claims with evidence. 

But gosh, Kurt, maybe you know more about the Senate bill than these guys do: 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...

As conservatives balk, U.S. Border Patrol union endorses Senate immigration deal

The National Border Patrol Council, which endorsed Donald Trump for president in 2020, said the new bipartisan bill "will drop illegal border crossings nationwide."

Feb. 5, 2024, 4:45 PM ESTBy Julie Tsirkin

WASHINGTON — As conservatives in Congress have blasted the new bipartisan border agreement for not going far enough, the legislation earned a key endorsement on Monday: the labor union that represents U.S. Border Patrol agents.

The National Border Patrol Council — which represents more than 18,000 agents — said the bill would “drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension.”

It's a significant statement of support from a group that endorsed former President Donald Trump in 2020 and has repeatedly railed against President Joe Biden’s handling of the border.

“While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo,” Brandon Judd, president of the council, said in the statement. “This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage.”

Just last week, Judd attended a House Republican roundtable in the Capitol entitled “The Impact of the Biden Border Crisis” and slammed the Biden administration for having “destabilized our Southwest Border.”

 kcar wrote: 
FNC ?  You don't know what that is ?  You've got to be kidding after all of these years of bashing it.

Fox News Channel ...

Oh and Reagan and immigration which you apparently know nothing about ... but should if you want to speak on this subject with any kind of authority.

 

That is when all this shit began.  This was the first attempt to update immigration and fix the border.  A deal that was worked out by Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill.  The deal was that there would be a one time amnesty for all illegals presently in the country in exchange for the democrats passing legislation fixing the immigration laws and securing the border.  Well Reagan kept his side of the bargain but the democrats reneged on their part and have obstructed securing the border ever since.

 kurtster wrote:
"The NYT is a liberal fantasy news outlet that I don't consider worthwhile just like you don't consider FNC to be worthwhile. So there you have that."

You're not fooling anyone when you write crap like that. You're just confessing that you deliberately didn't read the NYT excerpts or can't respond to its recitation of historical facts. As for FNC, I confess I don't know WTF FNC stands for. You apparently think highly of it but strangely don't use any of its reportage or analysis to back up your assertions. 

And so we have another reason your arguments don't find much traction here: you can't or won't back them up.

"The dems burned us back when Reagan foolishly took them at their word with the reform package of that time and they have been lying about their intentions ever since. That would be almost 40 years ago."

You don't even bother to explain what you're referring to—nothing about the supposed Democratic broken promise, nothing about how Reagan lost out because of this supposed skullduggery, nada. And what does Reagan-era immigration reform have to do with today? Most of the main politicians from that age are dead or retired. 

"We already have a real stand alone comprehensive immigration bill to consider that looks pretty darned good to me. That would be HR 2.

What is wrong with this ? Why is it so bad that Schumer would not even look at it ?"

I didn't know much about HR 2 until I looked at its provisions today. It reads lik an unrealistic anti-immigrant vendetta whose creators pulled together for political show and hardly for passage. The E-Verify system seems pretty poor at catching "undocumented workers"==see below. It's already used by 22 states . Making it drastically more effective at removing undocumented workers from the American workplace could devastate certain industries like constructtion and agriculture. HR2's asylum restrictions seem far less practial than the Senate bill's. HR2 aims to fund a wall even though Trump's administration and the years following showed that such a wall causes conflicts between states, property owners and the federal government—and it the wall doesn't work. The proposed removal of protections for immigrant children is a human rights disaster waiting to explode. HR2 provides no pathway for legalization of undocumented immigrants and no funding for increasing the capability of official ports of entry to handle applicants; both of these failures are insanely stupid. 

5 things to know about the border bill at the heart of GOP shutdown threats

Under H.R. 2, employers would be required to verify — under penalty of prison — that all their workers were documented.

The method for doing so would be the E-Verify system, a voluntary program set up under a 1996 immigration bill passed under then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) that cross-references an employee’s employment paperwork against the social security database.

That program is currently optional under federal law, although 22 states require all employers to use it, and several — including Michigan and Texas — require it for federal contractors.

Data on whether requiring the program successfully forces undocumented immigrants from the labor force is contradictory.

...


U.S. government records found that about 57,000 citizens were erroneously flagged as undocumented by the program — a number that the National Immigration Forum argues is a serious undercount, because recording such an error requires employers to know they can contest a false positive.

And a 2019 report by the libertarian Cato Institute found that E-Verify catches fewer than 1 in 6 undocumented workers.

Even catching that share could impact industries that rely on undocumented labor, however. That includes the agriculture industry, as about 40 percent of all farmworkers in the U.S. are undocumented, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

According to the USDA, that number is highest in California — and a reason Rep. John Duarte (R) was one of just two Republicans to vote against H.R. 2 in May.

The program “would have been devastating for food producers or would have been devastating for farmworker families,” he said.

Slashes asylum

...

As such, H.R. 2 makes it far harder for migrants to claim asylum and makes the process far more onerous for those able to stay long enough for that claim to be processed.

For example, the bill denies people the ability to claim asylum unless the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer who processes them believes their ultimate case would more likely than not be accepted, adds a $50 fee to make an asylum claim and bars migrants from making an asylum claim anywhere but at an official port of entry.

This last measure represents a paradox, because it is precisely the backups and closures at ports of entry that help push migrants to venture into the desert between official crossings.

The bill also provides for even those who are found to have credible claims to be held in detention for the years while their cases drag on — and requires the Department of Homeland Security to expand detention facilities to hold them.

...

In fact, under the Biden administration, the asylum system has already been significantly restricted. In August, a three-judge panel upheld the administration’s “asylum ban,” which bars most migrants who have transitioned through a third country from applying for refugee status.

Build a wall while slashing immigrant services

H.R. 2 would require the federal government to wall off at least 900 miles of the U.S.’s roughly 2000-mile border with Mexico, resuming all Trump-era plans that were interrupted by the former president’s electoral defeat in 2020.

To do so, the bill would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive all legal requirements — such as environmental review or historical site review — to get the wall built as quickly as possible.

It also would offer $110 million per year to the border forces being set up by states including Texas, often in open defiance of the federal government — with money that would in part be balanced out by defunding any nonprofits that provide services to undocumented immigrants.

,,,

And it would revive long-ignored language from a 2006 bill that would allow DHS to close the border entirely if it determines doing so is necessary to block undocumented crossings.

Ends protections for migrant children

H.R. 2 would roll back many protections for minors created under the Flores settlement, which resulted from a 1993 court case and has since guided federal immigration law, aside from a brief hiatus under Trump.

It would require DHS to reestablish family detention, and once again allow families with children to be detained indefinitely.

The bill would also make it far harder for unaccompanied migrant children to claim special immigrant juvenile status — something youth can currently claim if they can’t reunite with one or both parents, and which H.R. 2 would restrict to those whose parents have neglected or abandoned them.

It would also fast-track deportations of unaccompanied minors, lengthen the time that children can be held in adult facilities on the border from 3 to 30 days and bar states from creating licensing requirements for those border detention facilities — even in cases where state law should require such oversight.

Doesn’t address legal immigration

Perhaps just as notable as what H.R.2 includes, however, is what it doesn’t: any path for citizenship, bolstering of pathways to legal immigration or alternative means of supporting a U.S. workforce — and particularly food system — that relies on undocumented labor.

In addition to not offering any expansion to the country’s sclerotic and backlogged legal immigration pathways, H.R. 2 wouldn’t provide funding to expand the capacity of official ports of entry — the only place where it would allow asylum claims to be made.

And GOP lawmakers including Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) have pushed to cut DHS’s funds if the Biden administration and the Senate don’t pass H.R. 2.

This lack of action on legal immigration stands out as even key Republican constituencies like the Chamber of Commerce, which is part of a vast array of state and national business groups — from the National Milk Producers Federation and the National Restaurant Association to Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association — call for comprehensive reform of the legal immigration system.

There is some overlap between HR2 and the Senate bill—for instance, they grant the federal government the power to shut down the southern border during emergencies and immigration surges. AFAICT though, the Senate bill provides for far more funding of its proposed agenda than does HR2. 

The Senate bill also seems more realistic in terms of handling asylum seekers: 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...

The bill would also end the practice of “catch and release.” If passed into law, the bill would allow migrants who come to the border through lawful ports of entry and families to enter the U.S. under federal supervision for 90 days while they complete asylum interviews. Those who pass would receive work permits as they await adjudication of their claims. Those who fail would be removed from the U.S. and repatriated to their home countries or to Mexico.

The bill would mandate detaining migrants who try to enter the U.S. outside of official ports of entry, pending any asylum claims. Those who fail would also be removed.

The bill allocates funding for repatriation flights up to 77 per day.

 kcar wrote: 
The NYT is a liberal fantasy news outlet that I don't consider worthwhile just like you don't consider FNC to be worthwhile.  So there you have that.

The dems burned us back when Reagan foolishly took them at their word with the reform package of that time and they have been lying about their intentions ever since.  That would be almost 40 years ago.

The Senate bill is not a stand alone bill for openers and it only provides band aids and bad new law to the immigration issues, which by most accounts are the number one or number two issues for this election cycle.

We already have a real stand alone comprehensive immigration bill to consider that looks pretty darned good to me.  That would be HR 2.

What is wrong with this ?  Why is it so bad that Schumer would not even look at it ?

FWIW, being a native Californian, (Reagan was my governor when I lived there) I have been aware of the border and the issues for at least 60 years and have thoughts that are my own and predate anything from Hannity or Carlson by decades since you bring them up.  I can think for myself on this subject.

And even worse is that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between legal and illegal immigration by conflating the two.  I have no problem with legal immigration.  Only illegal immigration, which you clearly do not think that there is such a thing as illegal immigration.

So as long as you believe in the NYT as the last word and do not understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, you can ... have a nice day ...

 Steely_D wrote:
Day One!  
 

 steeler wrote:
Woah woah woah!!! There’s a replacement. They’ll unveil it in two weeks and it’ll be like nothing anyone has ever seen; they’re all saying it. 

 kcar wrote:

This has some parallels to when the Republicans, helmed by Trump, were hellbent on repealing Obamacare and replacing it with nothing.

“Incandescent” with Rage: Matt Duss on Voter Anger over Biden Support for Netanyahu & Gaza Assault

Voter outrage over its unwavering pro-Israel stance is “incandescent” and on track to harm the president’s reelection campaign as Democratic Party members pull back on get-out-the-vote efforts, while some may refuse to vote at all.

 kurtster wrote:
Congrats on completely ignoring the long NYT piece that I posted recently, the one that recounted the numerous attempts over the last 20 years by Democrats and Republicans to fix the immigration system and slow the influx of immigrants. The primary reason those past attempts failed was that the right wing of Congressional Republicans refused to give up their favorite complaint and threw away chances to solve this problem. And oh look, it's happening again: because Trump is afraid that passage of the bill would give Biden a "win." 

Mike Johnson's admitted it. Apparently McConnell has now caved too. The Democrats gave the Republicans much of what they wanted...but now the Republicans don't seem to give a f#$k about solving the problem. And people like you yell because some schmuck like Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity tell you to.  

You wrote


"You are the one who needs to come up with solutions, not me. Of course Biden had a plan for all of this. You tell me what it is. You voted for open borders, not me."

Rather than crying about how those awful immigrants moved your cheese (when they actually didn't), why don't you tell us what's wrong with the Senate bill. 

BTW: for someone living pretty far away from the US's southern border, you sure do bitch a lot about immigrants. Recent immigrants having more children than natives and thus are keeping the national birth rate at a fairly modest growth level—in contrast to China and Western European nations which are facing significant long-term problems because of their population declines. 

Here are the key changes included in the bill:

— New emergency authority to restrict border crossings if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. If that metric is reached, the Homeland Security secretary could decide to largely bar migrants from seeking asylum if they crossed the border unlawfully.

If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS is required to use the authority. If encounters reach 8,500 in one day, the department is required to trigger the authority. But the federal government is limited in how long it can use the authority.

In the first year, the government can use it for 270 days, then 225 calendar days in the second year, and 180 days in the third year. The authority sunsets after three years.

— Codifies a policy that requires the government to process at least 1,400 asylum applications at ports of entry when the emergency authority is triggered.

— Raises the legal standard of proof to pass the initial screening for asylum, making it potentially more difficult for asylum seekers to pass.

— Expedites the asylum processing timeline from years to six months.

— Introduces a new process in which US Citizenship and Immigration Services would decide an asylum claim without it going through the immigration court system. The process doesn’t apply to unaccompanied migrant children.

— Preserves the president’s authority to designate humanitarian parole on a case-by-case basis. President Joe Biden has used the authority for Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans, Venezuelans and Haitians, among other populations.

— Includes limited changes that narrow the use of parole at land borders.

— Authorizes 250,000 additional immigrant visas to spread out over five years for families and applies to employment-based immigrants.

— Provides a pathway to citizenship for Afghans paroled into the United States after the US’ withdrawal from Afghanistan and extends the special immigrant visa program for Afghans who worked for the US government.

 rgio wrote: 
So ... so much to unpack here.
 
Wait a cotton picking minute here, spud.

Firstly, one cannot discuss a problem without first identifying and agreeing on what the problem is.  Up until a few days ago, Biden, et al were saying there is no problem with the border.  

I didn't vote for Biden.  You voted for this shit show when you voted for Biden.  This was predicted.  

You are the one who needs to come up with solutions, not me.  Of course Biden had a plan for all of this.  You tell me what it is.  You voted for open borders, not me.  

The Senate Bill is finally out and it appears that the 5,000 per day number is real.  You bristle at the House decaling it DOA.  Yet the Senate did the same regarding HR 2.
 
I choose allowing ZERO illegal border crossings per day as present law already provides.  

 

Start my ass.  This started when Biden, POTUS, on day one, reversed all of Trump's policies which were working rather well, especially compared to what is currently happening.

Why make new laws when it has been demonstrated that they will be completely ignored by Biden and any other part of the democratic party ?  You are insane.

So you have no problem throwing US citizens under the bus to make accommodations to illegals who deserve nothing, other than what Biden promised them with a check his ass wrote that he cannot cash ?

You prove that you don't give a rat's ass about actual American Citizens by even asking this question.

So what are your solutions for this problem that you endorsed by helping to create it with your eyes wide open vote for Biden ?

 kurtster wrote:
You keep explaining problems, yet offer no solutions. Enlightenment feels like a stretch.

Ignore all of the prior discussion, everything you know to be true, and all of the existing problems with everyone who is already here and shouldn't be here.

You have 2 choices:

A) unlimited people coming in, or
B) 5,000 per day

Which do you choose?

I agree that any number feels a bit arbitrary and silly.  If we can close the door at 5,000, why open it at all?   For whatever reason, that's not on the table right now. 

5,000 a day, as you point out, is still a lot of people, but if that policy were in place in 2022 and 2023, there would be at least 1,000,000 fewer people here now.  In December alone, 150,000 fewer people would have walked in.  How many more schools and homeless shelters will be closed because of the excess over the 5,000 per day threshold you don't want?

Nothing proposed is a final solution, but it's a start. 

Explain why you think we're better off keeping the number unlimited vs 5,000 per day.

Please enlighten me.

 rgio wrote: 
A)  The Democratic Party invitees were just supposed to stay in the border states and keep them there and make the border states pay for everyone ?  Without any support from the  federal government. Is that what you are saying ?  What is the point of being a Sanctuary City if they don't take these people that they invited in, in ?  Y'all want it both ways, until it's NIMBY.  Posers.

B)  The Senate Border Bill.  Yeah, no one has seen it yet.  Is that correct ?  Another 1200 page bill that no one gets to read, prepared by Schumer 4 months ago (according to what I have heard).  Then where is this 5,000 daily limit on illegal entry into the US coming from ?  That is the major hang up, for me and a whole bunch of others.  If this instance and number is true, then there is no way in hell any daily permissible illegal entry quota should be put into law.  That is 1.8 million illegal entries per year, if the math is correct. 

So now we have codified legal entry quotas and illegal entry quotas ?  That's what you want ?  And I am wrong for thinking that this makes no sense ?  Please enlighten me.

Oh, and Biden can have the border back in control without Congress doing anything.  All that Biden would have to do is reverse his reversal of Trump's policies that was the first thing he did upon taking office.  They were working.  We did not have a full scale invasion going on.  We do now.  If 8,000,000 people is not enough to call an invasion, how many are ?

So it seems as if the right wing of the GOP has been killing immigration reform and improved border security for MANY years now...

History of Failure on Border Policy Hangs Over Current Push in Congress

Republicans have scuttled efforts to rewrite immigration laws repeatedly over the past two decades, despite powerful bipartisan coalitions behind the efforts.

A bipartisan group of senators holds weeks of closed-door talks to assemble a border and immigration package in response to mounting demands to fix the migrant crisis. The president gets on board despite blowback from the left. The Republican-controlled House is another matter, with hard-right conservatives flexing their muscle and demanding harsh restrictions.

That was the situation in 2014 when a major congressional push to enact far-reaching changes to immigration law appeared tantalizingly close to bearing fruit — only to come to nothing.

...

As they look back, those involved in past negotiations say it is frustrating that they have come so close so many times to enacting major legislation only to see it fly off the rails — not once, but twice in the past two decades. Had the proposals become law, they say, the border would be secure today, and the nation could have moved past the constantly raging immigration fight.

“If we’d have done any of those bills, we wouldn’t have these problems today,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a charter member of numerous “gangs” of lawmakers that have repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to strike border deals, notably in 2007 and 2014.

...

When George W. Bush was re-elected president in 2004 with significant Hispanic support, he saw an opening for an immigration overhaul and a signature second-term achievement. He began pressing for action in 2006 in an Oval Office address.

A bipartisan group of senators led by Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Jon Kyl of Arizona went to work and came up with what they termed a “grand bargain” that traded new border restrictions for a path to citizenship for millions. But conservative Republicans attacked the legislation, making the now familiar arguments that it would reward those who had come to the United States illegally and did not do enough to fortify the border. Months of work fell to a bipartisan Senate filibuster in June 2007.

The next big push came in 2013 and 2014. The re-election of Barack Obama in 2012 had exposed declining Republican appeal to Hispanic voters and persuaded party leaders that they must embrace an immigration overhaul to halt that slide.

While talks quietly got underway in the House, a bipartisan “Gang of Eight” emerged in the Senate. On the Republican side, it included John McCain of Arizona; Marco Rubio of Florida, a rising star with Hispanic and conservative credibility; and Mr. Graham. Democratic participants included Senators Chuck Schumer of What emerged from months of deliberations was the 1,200-page Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. It tied a 13-year pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people to tough benchmarks on border security. It established a new employee verification program to protect jobs from undocumented workers and created new visa programs for workers under an agreement between business and labor.New York, Mr. Durbin and Michael Bennet of Colorado.

What emerged from months of deliberations was the 1,200-page Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. It tied a 13-year pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people to tough benchmarks on border security. It established a new employee verification program to protect jobs from undocumented workers and created new visa programs for workers under an agreement between business and labor.

In contrast to 2007, the bill cleared the Senate with surprising strength, attracting 68 votes, including 14 Republicans and all Democrats. Mr. Schumer said at the time that the level of support would force the House to take up the issue, a dynamic similar to today, when senators hope a solid Senate vote will propel any plan over House Republican resistance.

But a decade ago, as now, the situation in the House was complex. Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, a traditional Republican with powerful ties to the business world, was willing to consider an immigration overhaul. But he was confronting the rising influence in his ranks of far-right Republicans, who made railing against illegal immigration a signature issue, so he moved carefully. A series of smaller bills emerged from the House that excluded a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Hoping to rally House Republicans, Mr. Boehner used a party retreat in January 2014 to unveil a set of immigration “principles” that were heavy on border security. They also omitted a path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants, but instead proposed allowing them to remain in the United States and work if they met certain tests, including paying taxes and admitting they broke the law. But within days, Mr. Boehner was backtracking under pressure from the right, and the effort stalled.

In June, Representative Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican and the majority leader, was defeated in a stunning primary upset by a challenger who had attacked him as a backer of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“That night, I knew it was over,” said Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican and veteran of multiple immigration negotiations who was a leading proponent of the plan. “The folks who had supported what we had done immediately started saying, ‘Look, this is a problem.’ That’s what killed it.”

 kurtster wrote:
2 issues: Dealing with those already here and stopping the flow.

Regarding your virtuous cry for help for high schoolers and disadvantaged kids (you know, the ones you wouldn't fund any other day of the year)...No, rec centers and schools shouldn't be closed to support immigrants, but using them temporarily instead of having people freezing on the street seems like a reasonable decision.  BTW...these folks didn't walk to the cold weather...the Republicans shipped them there, and now complain that the Dems are making necessary decisions. 

What would you do with those in NY?  Is it your advice to keep the school open and let them sleep outside?  Blaming immigration policy is pointless...they're here and need to be dealt with.  Are you deporting them?  What's the plan... or did you stop at just complaining?

On the border issue you refuse to acknowledge... do you or don't you support closing the southern border?  You don't support the bi-partisan agreement that Trump killed?  If not, why?  Enlighten us as to the errors of the gentleman from Oklahoma's argument.

 kurtster wrote:
Gosh, pookie, it sure does seem like you don't have a lot to complain about now. You can cry about what Joe said during the '20 campaign, but he's willing to give Republicans what they want at the border NOW. 

From the video clip interview, it sounds as if the proposed reform would give Republicans all that they were calling for. Why, it's almost Trump was in the White House on this issue! 

So Joe gave the Republicans pretty much what they wanted. Only they're balking now because Drumpf doesn't want to give Biden a "win." So it sure does seem as if Trump cares more about his election chances than securing the border. And Congressional Republicans are caving to Drumpf. 

Maybe border security and immigration reform aren't such a big deal to your Republican leaders, Kurt. 

 rgio wrote: 
Nice dodge. 

This is about what it means about democrats and their Sanctuary status for cities and states and the people already here.  All 8,000,000 of them that we know of.  They opened the border and in they came and naturally gravitated to these Sanctuary locations.  Now that these locations got what they wished for, they cannot deal with it and are shitting on citizens in order to deal with the mess that they created.  And to make things worse they are doing it to the underclasses in their neighborhoods, not in nice places where people like you might live.  Throwing children out of school.  Closing rec centers in the middle of winter to these disadvantaged children to take care of the illegals. 

This is what all of you who voted for Biden actually voted for.  He told us that he was opening the border, it is the party platform after all. Thank Hillary for that one.  Biden kept his promise.  But he ain't done a thing about taking care of the people he let in.  He's letting the locations flounder and take away services from citizens such as schools and recreation facilities, not to mention the budget cuts resulting in fewer police and other services.  But defund the police is also a democrat thing, so this is okay in the democrat party, too.

Biden told us that the border was secure and under control all of his term.  None of these overwhelmed locations are willing to change their Sanctuary status.  They just want Biden to give them money to spend on the illegals.  Biden ain't giving them money and forcing hardships on children and other citizens of this country instead.

One irony might be that these illegals if offered citizenship, might actually pass it up because they would be losing too many freebies and other benefits that they would not get if they became citizens ...

 kurtster wrote:
Trump supports this.  He said so (I pointed that out in a post you conveniently ignored while you posted serially "today in history" facts).  "Please, blame it on me"  DJT - Las Vegas, 1.27.24

Don't take my word for it...Here's a Republican telling you what's going on...

The Democratic Party can no longer legitimately claim anything having to do with protecting children or acting on their behalf.

We have seen them close schools in NYC to shelter illegals and now a rec center in Mass has been closed in order to house illegals.

Putting illegals in front of US citizens and especially children is simply wrong and unforgivable, imo.
.
Democratic Gov. Healey slammed for closing rec center in black neighborhood to house immigrants

Healey told residents at the forum that the facility would be open again to the public by June. In the meantime, she admitted she was unsure of what to do for programs that had been uprooted, saying she would try calling some universities.

In the latest report, the migrant crisis has cost Massachusetts $325 million, and state officials estimated that it could cost the state nearly $1 billion this year, according to WWLP.