Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote: I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist.
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies. And calling out the National Guard is to prevent violence and stop that which had already started. We have a heckler's veto for street action now?
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I live in California, and I didn't vote for either of them so I didn't for this or against it I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild.
Ugh, I thought you might be a semi serious person, I can see that you are bought in to the "invasion" brainwashing and framing by the right.
I don't have a horse in this race but I don't really want to engage with another oBlade level great replacement theory racist, there doesn't seem to be a point.
If there's anything that shouts "I'm serious" it's being unable to stop yourself from calling everyone a fascist and racist.
This is another rent free residency I don't need. When you run out of things to say, find an answer that doesn't involve my name.
Your horse in the race is Amazon subsidiary contracts. Your vitriol is your emotional coping because of anxiety about that. Adults can see through it.
Haha, buddy, just like you compared Lincoln and Trump, I compared the two of you, being the resident right wingers who buy this insane propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Also, I'm changing jobs, this time I'll be working for an American company directly so the potential Amazon tax can't bother me anymore, I do appreciate you worrying about me, tho!
The bigger issue for me is that you guys are trying to export your brand of fascism worldwide, just see JD Vance speech in the Munich conference right at the start of this regime, it's basically the same rhetoric, trying to explain to Europeans how we are being invaded. Difference being, most Europeans are much more reasonable and less susceptible to propaganda and othering then people like you.
On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote: I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist.
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies. And calling out the National Guard is to prevent violence and stop that which had already started. We have a heckler's veto for street action now?
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I live in California, and I didn't vote for either of them so I didn't for this or against it I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild.
Ugh, I thought you might be a semi serious person, I can see that you are bought in to the "invasion" brainwashing and framing by the right.
I don't have a horse in this race but I don't really want to engage with another oBlade level great replacement theory racist, there doesn't seem to be a point.
If there's anything that shouts "I'm serious" it's being unable to stop yourself from calling everyone a fascist and racist.
This is another rent free residency I don't need. When you run out of things to say, find an answer that doesn't involve my name.
Your horse in the race is Amazon subsidiary contracts. Your vitriol is your emotional coping because of anxiety about that. Adults can see through it.
Mate. We are both old enough to remember when American conservatives called Obama a communist. Ibanacare was socialism and everyone was a marxist. That was bloody idiotic, yet that lasted for 8 years.
That MAGA is racism is really not that hard to argue considering their talks about White Genocide and other white suprematist conspiracy theories, and prominent scholars say that it has all the main features of a fascism movement.
We can argue whether that’s true or not, but there is enough merit to call Trump a fascist to be the subject of academic debate.
So, i would take the dull road when it comes to misusing this kind of words, coming from a conservative.
Your post history is overwhelmingly anti-left, a left who aren’t even in power in the big offices at present in the States. I even said it in my ‘one can condemn both, absolutely’.
This doesn’t remotely actually make you right wing, but to an outside observer who doesn’t know you personally and only has your posts to go off, it’s hardly an ‘out-there’ assumption
Thats because since covid left went mental. It became like abusive husband "how dare you say that" "look what you made me do, driving this tesla around" "it is your fault that I am burning cars and looting stores" "what do you mean we cant afford food, get a second job, I have to work on my art, so we can be rich someday"
Your post history is overwhelmingly anti-left, a left who aren’t even in power in the big offices at present in the States. I even said it in my ‘one can condemn both, absolutely’.
This doesn’t remotely actually make you right wing, but to an outside observer who doesn’t know you personally and only has your posts to go off, it’s hardly an ‘out-there’ assumption
Your post history is overwhelmingly anti-left, a left who aren’t even in power in the big offices at present in the States. I even said it in my ‘one can condemn both, absolutely’.
This doesn’t remotely actually make you right wing, but to an outside observer who doesn’t know you personally and only has your posts to go off, it’s hardly an ‘out-there’ assumption
Thats because since covid left went mental. It became like abusive husband "how dare you say that" "look what you made me do, driving this tesla around" "it is your fault that I am burning cars and looting stores" "what do you mean we cant afford food, get a second job, I have to work on my art, so we can be rich someday"
what the actual fuck are you talking about. Your own delusional brain spasms are not a substitute for what 'the left' is actually saying.
"what do you mean we cant afford food, get a second job, I have to work on my art, so we can be rich someday"
just ??? what, like the literal actual opposite of the lefts position on poverty.
Your post history is overwhelmingly anti-left, a left who aren’t even in power in the big offices at present in the States. I even said it in my ‘one can condemn both, absolutely’.
This doesn’t remotely actually make you right wing, but to an outside observer who doesn’t know you personally and only has your posts to go off, it’s hardly an ‘out-there’ assumption
Thats because since covid left went mental. It became like abusive husband "how dare you say that" "look what you made me do, driving this tesla around" "it is your fault that I am burning cars and looting stores" "what do you mean we cant afford food, get a second job, I have to work on my art, so we can be rich someday"
what the actual fuck are you talking about. Your own delusional brain spasms are not a substitute for what 'the left' is actually saying.
Your post history is overwhelmingly anti-left, a left who aren’t even in power in the big offices at present in the States. I even said it in my ‘one can condemn both, absolutely’.
This doesn’t remotely actually make you right wing, but to an outside observer who doesn’t know you personally and only has your posts to go off, it’s hardly an ‘out-there’ assumption
Thats because since covid left went mental. It became like abusive husband "how dare you say that" "look what you made me do, driving this tesla around" "it is your fault that I am burning cars and looting stores" "what do you mean we cant afford food, get a second job, I have to work on my art, so we can be rich someday"
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies. And calling out the National Guard is to prevent violence and stop that which had already started. We have a heckler's veto for street action now?
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I live in California, and I didn't vote for either of them so I didn't for this or against it I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild.
Ugh, I thought you might be a semi serious person, I can see that you are bought in to the "invasion" brainwashing and framing by the right.
I don't have a horse in this race but I don't really want to engage with another oBlade level great replacement theory racist, there doesn't seem to be a point.
If there's anything that shouts "I'm serious" it's being unable to stop yourself from calling everyone a fascist and racist.
This is another rent free residency I don't need. When you run out of things to say, find an answer that doesn't involve my name.
Your horse in the race is Amazon subsidiary contracts. Your vitriol is your emotional coping because of anxiety about that. Adults can see through it.
Haha, buddy, just like you compared Lincoln and Trump, I compared the two of you, being the resident right wingers who buy this insane propaganda hook, line and sinker.
I am not conservative and not Republican. You can ask Introvert his affiliation if you're curious, and if he still bothers to give you the time of day after you polluted the conversation by calling him a racist after he said... the national sovereignty of a country he's a citizen of should exist.
What countries are you a citizen of? Croatia and Non Sequitur Island? Suppose I want to vote in your elections. But I'm not a citizen. If you oppose my suffrage, you're a big racist. You're welcome for me calling out your BS.
You're a broken record on that and this Lincoln thing. What part of my "comparison" was objectionable? You brought it up now. Again. So okay, explain. Say something other than a synonym of "I can't even." I specifically said Trump is no Lincoln. Another guy said Lincoln was shit anyway. As president, both of them share the job of preserving the Union. I find this to be basically the definition of president. Is your crash out anything more than a manifestation of denial that Trump could really be president and work in the same office Lincoln did? Explain the scope of my error while I'm still listening.
3% of the population being illegal immigrants definitely undermines America's national sovereignty to a degree that the national guard has to be sent out without prior approval so they can fight law-abiding American citizens in their own communities for protesting against government overreach.
Sure, why not. Lets go all the way with the bootlicking, why not.
Your post history is overwhelmingly anti-left, a left who aren’t even in power in the big offices at present in the States. I even said it in my ‘one can condemn both, absolutely’.
This doesn’t remotely actually make you right wing, but to an outside observer who doesn’t know you personally and only has your posts to go off, it’s hardly an ‘out-there’ assumption
Thats because since covid left went mental. It became like abusive husband "how dare you say that" "look what you made me do, driving this tesla around" "it is your fault that I am burning cars and looting stores" "what do you mean we cant afford food, get a second job, I have to work on my art, so we can be rich someday"
what the actual fuck are you talking about. Your own delusional brain spasms are not a substitute for what 'the left' is actually saying.
"what do you mean we cant afford food, get a second job, I have to work on my art, so we can be rich someday"
just ??? what, like the literal actual opposite of the lefts position on poverty.
Sounds like there is an interesting echochamber of "totally not rightwing centrists" Razyda gets his information from.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he was a centrist
On June 11 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote: 3% of the population being illegal immigrants definitely undermines America's national sovereignty to a degree that the national guard has to be sent out without prior approval so they can fight law-abiding American citizens in their own communities for protesting against government overreach.
Sure, why not. Lets go all the way with the bootlicking, why not.
Yeah It’s 'just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn.
On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote: I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist.
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies. And calling out the National Guard is to prevent violence and stop that which had already started. We have a heckler's veto for street action now?
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I live in California, and I didn't vote for either of them so I didn't for this or against it I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild.
Ugh, I thought you might be a semi serious person, I can see that you are bought in to the "invasion" brainwashing and framing by the right.
I don't have a horse in this race but I don't really want to engage with another oBlade level great replacement theory racist, there doesn't seem to be a point.
I'll be nice.
You could engage with what I said instead of reading "national sovereignty" (a phrase I didn't know Trump used yesterday) as some sort of code. Borders are a quintessential part of what makes a nation? And people who violate them are quite literally violating a nation's sovereignty, this is almost true by definition. Invasion is not the word I would use as it normally has a more military connotation and I'm not sure drug cartels quite rise to that level. But in the game of political hyperbole I don't think anyone here or you in particular have any ground from which to criticize.
If you think it's fine for people here illegally to be allowed to stay just by virtue of the fact they made it over the border than fine I guess but I think it's perfectly reasonable to object to that. And objecting to that implies a willingness to enforce the prohibition on that conduct. Imo your name calling and exasperation at engaging with people is, if I may generalize now, a serious problem on the left. those of us who have different opinions than the majority here somehow manage without it. I still commend your earlier condemnation of violence, but you seem quick to apply labels.
Your post history is overwhelmingly anti-left, a left who aren’t even in power in the big offices at present in the States. I even said it in my ‘one can condemn both, absolutely’.
This doesn’t remotely actually make you right wing, but to an outside observer who doesn’t know you personally and only has your posts to go off, it’s hardly an ‘out-there’ assumption
Thats because since covid left went mental. It became like abusive husband "how dare you say that" "look what you made me do, driving this tesla around" "it is your fault that I am burning cars and looting stores" "what do you mean we cant afford food, get a second job, I have to work on my art, so we can be rich someday"
what the actual fuck are you talking about. Your own delusional brain spasms are not a substitute for what 'the left' is actually saying.
"what do you mean we cant afford food, get a second job, I have to work on my art, so we can be rich someday"
just ??? what, like the literal actual opposite of the lefts position on poverty.
Sounds like there is an interesting echochamber of "totally not rightwing centrists" Razyda gets his information from.
Bizarrely my most read newspaper is... Guardian. Thats not even close. Others only come when I want to compare the news, or when I google for news which are not in Guardian.
On June 11 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote: 3% of the population being illegal immigrants definitely undermines America's national sovereignty to a degree that the national guard has to be sent out without prior approval so they can fight law-abiding American citizens in their own communities for protesting against government overreach.
Sure, why not. Lets go all the way with the bootlicking, why not.
Can you imagine any conditions that would cause Trump to withdraw or demobilize the National Guard and Marines?
On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote: I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist.
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies. And calling out the National Guard is to prevent violence and stop that which had already started. We have a heckler's veto for street action now?
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I live in California, and I didn't vote for either of them so I didn't for this or against it I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild.
Ugh, I thought you might be a semi serious person, I can see that you are bought in to the "invasion" brainwashing and framing by the right.
I don't have a horse in this race but I don't really want to engage with another oBlade level great replacement theory racist, there doesn't seem to be a point.
I'll be nice.
You could engage with what I said instead of reading "national sovereignty" (a phrase I didn't know Trump used yesterday) as some sort of code. Borders are a quintessential part of what makes a nation? And people who violate them are quite literally violating a nation's sovereignty, this is almost true by definition. Invasion is not the word I would use as it normally has a more military connotation and I'm not sure drug cartels quite rise to that level. But in the game of political hyperbole I don't think anyone here or you in particular have any ground from which to criticize.
If you think it's fine for people here illegally to be allowed to stay just by virtue of the fact they made it over the border than fine I guess but I think it's perfectly reasonable to object to that. And objecting to that implies a willingness to enforce the prohibition on that conduct. Imo your name calling and exasperation at engaging with people is, if I may generalize now, a serious problem on the left. those of us who have different opinions than the majority here somehow manage without it. I still commend your earlier condemnation of violence, but you seem quick to apply labels.
I think that pretending like having ICE raids in LA is for the propose of preserving "national sovereignty" is something that's been fed to you guys recently and now you are parroting it all the time. I understand that it's hard to see that you are propagandized from your perspective but you, to most people in this thread, which majorly doesn't really support "unchecked migration" but does support normal ways of dealing with it are obviously someone who buys and spreads this shit, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.
If Trump wanted to deal with this problem instead of using it as an excuse for a power grab he could have, we went over that, but I guess using Congress and Senate in order to enact laws is not something you guys are interested, as you noted, a bipartisan bill supported (before Trump ordered otherwise) by 219 republicans in Congress in 2023 was proclaimed as "weak" by Trump and you decided to parrot that, despite Democrats being willing to swing all the way to the right on it, it wasn't good enough, it didn't bring political points to Trump so it was abandoned.
I think that sending national guard and marines, without consent of the governor to a state in order to enable filling out of quotas for arresting "illegals" is doing a lot to break the union apart, and no matter how much you guys feel offended cheering that on is anti-American, since it's been done based on color of people's skin it's also racist and since these kind of moves are 1:1 fascist playbook it's enabling fascism.
If you feel offended by that perhaps you should stop supporting it, when you support it you get labeled for what you are.
I find both your and oBlade's bloviating about civility hilarious, by the way, it's another tactic from the fascist playbook and this video covered it amazingly:
EPT
I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild. 
