Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Kamala Harris' border crisis. Biden put her in charge.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, squistion said:

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

Edited by parasaurolophus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

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.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John123 said:

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

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.

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, John123 said:

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

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.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John123 said:

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Commish said:

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. 

Edited by John123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John123 said:

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2021 at 1:09 PM, 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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Commish said:

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.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John123 said:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Commish said:

Sure. :shrug:

We have no jurisdiction over what mexico does though 

That is where you have to cut off aid to Mexico or whatever,  If they thought they had to deal with them, its closed tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Commish said:

Of course we do. This is just fishing or a poorly worded "joke"

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FairWarning said:

That is where you have to cut off aid to Mexico or whatever,  If they thought they had to deal with them, its closed tomorrow.

Ok?

Not sure that would work, but its possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BladeRunner said:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by -jb-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sho nuff said:

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? 

Edited by parasaurolophus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, -jb- said:

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Commish said:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sho nuff said:

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?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, John123 said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Do you favor approving all immigrants that are non violent claiming asylum? 

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

No...is anyone advocating that?  Or are we creating a straw man?

Not sure the parameters either at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Not sure.  When do you think?  When is it too much or a net negative?

I'm not sure either.  My problem is I don't think the higher powers know the answer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Not sure.  When do you think?  When is it too much or a net negative?

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!

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

I asked you a question first. 

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). 

  • Laughing 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, squistion said:

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, shadrap said:

& register them to vote.

& if HR 1-For the People bill passes register them to vote even if they don't want to register to vote.  Oh Yea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • NorvilleBarnes changed the title to Kamala Harris' border crisis. Biden put her in charge.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...