What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Kamala Harris' border crisis. Biden put her in charge. (1 Viewer)

It is a false claim that Democrats want no borders. 
This is a matter of opinion. When the GOP accuses dems of wanting open borders or no borders they dont mean getting rid of lines on a map or just abandoning all posts. That should be obvious since it is such a crazy concept.

Sure they realize democrats dont want people that cut off other peoples heads(that can be proven of course since who knows how accurate their criminal justice systems are) strolling on in.

But hiring more judges to process all of the other people that arent violent criminals is not exactly a difference in the eyes of republicans. 

Do you favor letting in everybody that isnt a violent criminal that comes to the border and claims asylum? 

I highly doubt you would get many dem politicians to say no to that right now. They would say we need more judges or whatever other dodge or say yes.

Eta: unless your stance is that a high % people coming to the border are violent criminals

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IF processing legal means to come into the country is the same as open borders in the eyes of republicans (some or any)...that seems to be not just a difference of opinion...but just ignoring actual facts on immigration and changing the definitions of open borders as it is.  Is anyone (again, other than Tim), advocating to let in everybody that is not a violent criminal?  I don't believe that is the policy of the Biden administration either.

 
The media blackout here is inexcusable.
https://twitter.com/jbmoorephoto/status/1372924066894651392?s=20

John Moore

I respectfully ask US Customs and Border Protection to stop blocking media access to their border operations. I have photographed CBP under Bush, Obama and Trump but now - zero access is granted to media. These long lens images taken from the Mexican side.

John Moore

@jbmoorephoto

·

Mar 19Replying to

@jbmoorephoto

There’s no modern precedent for a full physical ban on media access to CBP border operations. To those who might say, cut them some slack - they are dealing with a situation, I’d say that showing the US response to the current immigrant surge is exactly the media’s role.

John Moore

@jbmoorephoto

·

Mar 19Photographing Border Patrol agents and immigrant encounters can and has been done respectfully without interfering with operations. Regardless,

@cbp

public affairs exists to work with media.

John Moore

@jbmoorephoto

·

Mar 19And Pandemic restrictions are not a valid excuse to block physical media access, especially to operations that are outside. There are easy alternative options to media ride-alongs.

@cbp

John Moore

@jbmoorephoto

·

Mar 19Showing the difficult and important work of

@cbp

agents in the field, while also photographing immigrants in a dignified way are not mutually exclusive endeavors. Transparency is key, even in a politicized environment.

@DHSgov

John Moore

@jbmoorephoto

·

Mar 20

The photographs in this tweet string were taken with a telephoto lens from across the border in Mexico. Until now, US photojournalists haven’t needed to stand in another country to photograph what’s happening - in the United States.

John Moore

@jbmoorephoto

·

21hThe vast majority of river crossings by asylum seekers happen on federal land in south Texas’ Rio Grande Valley. The federal govt. controls access to those areas. The Border Patrol has been removing journalists who enter, including recently myself, CBS, others.

@cbsmireya

 
The "sides" fishing trips are pretty bad. :lol:

Is it really that hard to comprehend that there are positions outside of "a" or "b"?  Is it a deflection mechanism when people see that consistency  CAN be a thing?  Really bizarre. 

 
The "sides" fishing trips are pretty bad. :lol:

Is it really that hard to comprehend that there are positions outside of "a" or "b"?  Is it a deflection mechanism when people see that consistency  CAN be a thing?  Really bizarre. 
I have no problem saying there are problems outside of a or b.  However, my starting point is that we have secure borders, for a lot of reasons.  The "other side" doesn't care about that.  Because what Trump did re: securing our borders made a big difference.  It wasn't perfect, and we can talk about what else needed to be done re: processing people who want to come here quicker, etc, but there is no doubt he made the border more secure than it had been in decades.  And, for me at least, that is the first and most important goal.  Protecting our own country comes first.  Anything else comes second.

 
I have no problem saying there are problems outside of a or b.  However, my starting point is that we have secure borders, for a lot of reasons.  The "other side" doesn't care about that.  Because what Trump did re: securing our borders made a big difference.  It wasn't perfect, and we can talk about what else needed to be done re: processing people who want to come here quicker, etc, but there is no doubt he made the border more secure than it had been in decades.  And, for me at least, that is the first and most important goal.  Protecting our own country comes first.  Anything else comes second.
:goodposting:

Great post, the deflection by others is pretty sad. 

 
This is a matter of opinion. When the GOP accuses dems of wanting open borders or no borders they dont mean getting rid of lines on a map or just abandoning all posts. That should be obvious since it is such a crazy concept.

Sure they realize democrats dont want people that cut off other peoples heads(that can be proven of course since who knows how accurate their criminal justice systems are) strolling on in.

But hiring more judges to process all of the other people that arent violent criminals is not exactly a difference in the eyes of republicans. 

Do you favor letting in everybody that isnt a violent criminal that comes to the border and claims asylum? 

I highly doubt you would get many dem politicians to say no to that right now. They would say we need more judges or whatever other dodge or say yes.

Eta: unless your stance is that a high % people coming to the border are violent criminals
No it isn't. If you disagree provide a link to any Democratic member of House or Senate who is calling for open borders or no borders.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no problem saying there are problems outside of a or b.  However, my starting point is that we have secure borders, for a lot of reasons.  The "other side" doesn't care about that.  Because what Trump did re: securing our borders made a big difference.  It wasn't perfect, and we can talk about what else needed to be done re: processing people who want to come here quicker, etc, but there is no doubt he made the border more secure than it had been in decades.  And, for me at least, that is the first and most important goal.  Protecting our own country comes first.  Anything else comes second.
Not sure that is totally correct.  I have many Dem family members who vote Dem but also want a tight secure border as they live near there.  Bidens  job is to protect our border states, the people who reside there, support our border patrol and he is failing miserably.  This is is going to be Bidens Achilles Heel and why Dems can never hold power for long.

 
Not sure that is totally correct.  I have many Dem family members who vote Dem but also want a tight secure border as they live near there.  Bidens  job is to protect our border states, the people who reside there, support our border patrol and he is failing miserably.  This is is going to be Bidens Achilles Heel and why Dems can never hold power for long.
I am not talking about everyday Americans.  Polls consistently show that most Americans want secure borders and illegal immigration stopped.  It's the Dems in power, and quite honestly a lot of the Republicans, who don't care.  They just ignore what the actual public wants. 

 
Not sure that is totally correct.  I have many Dem family members who vote Dem but also want a tight secure border as they live near there.  Bidens  job is to protect our border states, the people who reside there, support our border patrol and he is failing miserably.  This is is going to be Bidens Achilles Heel and why Dems can never hold power for long.
If you have Dem family members that want tight borders then it's your job to convicne them to stop voting for Dems.  They can't complain or want tight border security and then continue to vote for Democrats in every election.  :shrug:

The Democrat Party DOES NOT WANT BORDER SECURITY.  It's one of the planks in their platform.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no problem saying there are problems outside of a or b.  However, my starting point is that we have secure borders, for a lot of reasons.  The "other side" doesn't care about that.  Because what Trump did re: securing our borders made a big difference.  It wasn't perfect, and we can talk about what else needed to be done re: processing people who want to come here quicker, etc, but there is no doubt he made the border more secure than it had been in decades.  And, for me at least, that is the first and most important goal.  Protecting our own country comes first.  Anything else comes second.
It made a difference to the extent that his approach just kept them out, stacking up in Mexico. Thats not good enough to me and we are seeing the reason why unfold right in front of us. Every single President since ive been able to vote as passed the buck. But some of the minions here are convinced they ARENT just two sides of the same coin. 

 
It made a difference to the extent that his approach just kept them out, stacking up in Mexico. Thats not good enough to me and we are seeing the reason why unfold right in front of us. Every single President since ive been able to vote as passed the buck. But some of the minions here are convinced they ARENT just two sides of the same coin. 
That's the point of a secure border.  To keep them out.  And if that's not good enough for you, that's ok.  We can agree to disagree.  But what we're seeing now has nothing to do with Trump or securing the border.  That's disingenuous on your part. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the point of a secure border.  To keep them out.  And if that's not good enough for you, that's ok.  We can agree to disagree.  But what we're seeing now has nothing to do with Trump or securing the border.  That's disingenuous on your part. 
Thats not a secure border though. Just like allowing 5 million gallons of water to stack up behind a dam that is designed to only hold back 1 miilion gallons isnt "secure"  The part that makes us safest is ithe ability to process people efficiently and not have that backlog. Part of that is keeping those out that shouldnt be here. This isnt close to the zero sum game many of you want it to be. Its infinitely more complicated than that. 

 
The Commish said:
And im old enough to remember when funding for facilities, agents, lawyers, judges and tech at our points of entry were flat out rejected because there was no money for a pointless wall.
And this continues to be true and continually ignored by the people blabbering about the dems not wanting secure borders. Its pretty clear they didnt want a wall, but its a bridge too far to suggest that is the same as open borders. That kind of thinking is beneath even my 9 year old. 

 
Thats not a secure border though. Just like allowing 5 million gallons of water to stack up behind a dam that is designed to only hold back 1 miilion gallons isnt "secure"  The part that makes us safest is ithe ability to process people efficiently and not have that backlog. Part of that is keeping those out that shouldnt be here. This isnt close to the zero sum game many of you want it to be. Its infinitely more complicated than that. 
By definition no one crossing the border illegally should be here.  That's why we should secure it.  We should be deciding who we let in, not who stays in once they breach our border.

 
Thats not a secure border though. Just like allowing 5 million gallons of water to stack up behind a dam that is designed to only hold back 1 miilion gallons isnt "secure"  The part that makes us safest is ithe ability to process people efficiently and not have that backlog. Part of that is keeping those out that shouldnt be here. This isnt close to the zero sum game many of you want it to be. Its infinitely more complicated than that. 
Then Mexico needs to secure its southern border.  

 
By definition no one crossing the border illegally should be here.  That's why we should secure it.  We should be deciding who we let in, not who stays in once they breach our border.
Of course...thats why i said that in my post. Thats not ALL that goes into it though. All the things i listed are

 
Jurisdiction implies we are enforcing the laws on our southern border.  We're not.  Or, more accurately, the Democrats are not and refuse to do so.
Not by any definition ive ever heard, but its pretty clear your dictionary is one im unfamiliar with based on previous engagements

 
While I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the provocative and productive your-guy-sucks-no-your-guy-sucks discussion  so far, what are some of your ideas on how to do this right? What would you do? I imagine we’ll have everything from GoT style walls to Disneyland ferries every quarter mile, but it might be cool to hear what people would actually do. I don’t think there’s anyone here who doesn’t recognize the #### show that it is. It’s a first world country bordering a third world country and that is pretty unique. 
 

How do we solve it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IF processing legal means to come into the country is the same as open borders in the eyes of republicans (some or any)...that seems to be not just a difference of opinion...but just ignoring actual facts on immigration and changing the definitions of open borders as it is.  Is anyone (again, other than Tim), advocating to let in everybody that is not a violent criminal?  I don't believe that is the policy of the Biden administration either.
Do you favor approving all immigrants that are non violent claiming asylum? 

And if no, who would you reject? What paramters? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the provocative and productive your-guy-sucks-no-your-guy-sucks discussion  so far, what are some of your ideas on how to do this right? What would you do? I imagine we’ll have everything from GoT style walls to Disneyland ferries every quarter mile, but it might be cool to hear what people would actually do. I don’t think there’s anyone here who doesn’t recognize the #### show that it is. It’s a first world country bordering a third world country and that is pretty unique. 
 

How do we solve it?
@The Commish has been saying the the starting point that's needed. I'm not going to concern myself with details beyond that until Republicans in congress get behind those basics (they won't).

 
And this continues to be true and continually ignored by the people blabbering about the dems not wanting secure borders. Its pretty clear they didnt want a wall, but its a bridge too far to suggest that is the same as open borders. That kind of thinking is beneath even my 9 year old. 
Who would you deny entry to?

 
IF processing legal means to come into the country is the same as open borders in the eyes of republicans (some or any)...that seems to be not just a difference of opinion...but just ignoring actual facts on immigration and changing the definitions of open borders as it is.  Is anyone (again, other than Tim), advocating to let in everybody that is not a violent criminal?  I don't believe that is the policy of the Biden administration either.
When do you say enough is enough though?  10k?  100k?, no limit?  

 
I have no problem saying there are problems outside of a or b.  However, my starting point is that we have secure borders, for a lot of reasons.  The "other side" doesn't care about that.  Because what Trump did re: securing our borders made a big difference.  It wasn't perfect, and we can talk about what else needed to be done re: processing people who want to come here quicker, etc, but there is no doubt he made the border more secure than it had been in decades.  And, for me at least, that is the first and most important goal.  Protecting our own country comes first.  Anything else comes second.
if we can all admit it is more for votes than humanitarian motives the picture becomes a lot clearer.

 
Jurisdiction implies we are enforcing the laws on our southern border.  We're not.  Or, more accurately, the Democrats are not and refuse to do so.
I thought the swearing in oath that Biden took says he has to enforce the laws of our country?

 
Lol. 

Look guys we dont support open borders, we just refuse to commit to a number, we wont commit to the rules, and we want amnesty for the peoole here. Oh and we dont want a wall either. 

But other than that dont let them in!
:goodposting:

How do they even try to defend the ridiculousness of their party on this crisis? :lmao:

 
No you didn't. You made a statement that it is a matter of opinion.

And please, if you claim Democrats want no borders or open borders you need to provide at least one link showing a prominent Democratic legislator has called for that (and you haven't, because you can't). 
You don’t make the rules on what people have to provide. The mountain of evidence is more than enough for anyone not trying to hide from the reality we are all in. 

 
You don’t make the rules on what people have to provide. The mountain of evidence is more than enough for anyone not trying to hide from the reality we are all in. 
But I can call them out and ask for links when they make up stuff that is completely false and misleading as is the case here.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top