Below is my column in the Hill on the claims that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and other governors are committing crimes ranging from kidnapping to human trafficking in shipping undocumented immigrants to other states. The claims are legally baseless. While MSNBC regular Elie Mystal said this week, “kidnapping is a thing,” it is just not “this thing.” While insisting that migrants should be seen as a “blessing,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has declared the free trips to be “crimes against humanity.” Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Cal.) has also demanded criminal investigations even though Newsom, as mayor of San Francisco, shipped homeless people “back home” to other cities with free bus tickets. There are now threats of some blue states suing as well as New York City but those lawsuits are likely to fail absent evidence of systemic fraud or coercion. These migrants are allowed to engage in interstate travel and other states can facilitate such travel.
Here is the column:
Moves by Govs. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), Gregg Abbott (R-Texas) and Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.) to transport undocumented migrants to sanctuary cities beyond their states have produced a torrent of denunciation and claims of racism as being (in the words of one writer) the work of “white supremacists, relying on [a] racism-and-spite blueprint.”
Some pundits and Democratic politicians, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), have called for criminal investigations by the Justice Department on discrimination, fraud, “kidnapping or potential Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) charges.” DeSantis’ Democratic challenger in November, Charlie Crist, echoed calls for a federal investigation of his own state, declaring: “Justice needs to be served here.”
While these objections risk proving the intended political point of the trips, they do not prove a crime. If Attorney General Merrick Garland were to yield to this pressure, he would saw off the very branch of government on which his department sits.
Although Martha’s Vineyard previously declared itself a sanctuary for migrants, it declared a “humanitarian crisis” this week when some 50 individuals were flown there from Florida, and it denounced their arrival as a potentially criminal act.
Other leaders, such as D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, have demanded the deployment of the National Guard when border states shipped migrants to their jurisdictions. In Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker did precisely that — called out the Guard.
The border-state governors have responded that the groups bussed or flown to other jurisdictions are just a tiny percentage of those pouring over their borders, projected to be more than 2 million this year alone.
Yet Newsom’s demand that the Justice Department prosecute such transfers would create a dangerous precedent, one that might backfire on the Biden administration.
The Biden administration has transported thousands of migrants across the country with little public notice, including late-night flights denounced by Republicans as clandestine “ghost flights.” Those transfers have been defended by Democrats and others as standard practice in the past three administrations. This, as thousands of migrants regularly overwhelm border towns despite administration officials — including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and, most recently, Vice President Kamala Harris — insisting the border is secure.
The trips arranged by the three Republican governors have been denounced as a political stunt. And, indeed, they are — but they are not criminal acts, absent new evidence of compulsion or fraud. There are reports of some migrants demanding to be allowed off buses en route to New York, and some migrants are quoted as saying they were induced with promises of opportunities or care in sanctuary cities. Yet there is no evidence of systemic fraud or misrepresentation. Moreover, even if there was misrepresentation, it would not constitute some of the crimes being claimed on cable television, including Hillary Clinton declaring that it constitutes “literally human trafficking.”
Most migrants do not intend to remain in border communities with a huge influx of migrants and limited opportunities — one reason why the Biden administration has moved migrants elsewhere. Thus, if the administration pursued Newsom’s allegation of a possible “civil rights conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1985,” it would potentially make a case against itself. If these governors are discriminating on the basis of national origin, so is the administration.
Let’s consider a few of the other alleged crimes suggested by politicians and pundits:
Kidnapping, human trafficking
The claim by Newsom and others that this could constitute kidnapping is absurd. Kidnapping requires that the culprit “unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person.” There is nothing unlawful in conveying individuals who are lawfully in the country pending their immigration hearings; the trips are voluntary, and most migrants appear eager to accept free passage to cities like New York or Chicago.
Human trafficking — a charge suggested by some law professors — is prosecuted by the Justice Department when you exploit “a person for labor, services, or commercial sex.” Gov. DeSantis may have overt political motives for transporting migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, but even cable-news programs have not suggested he is doing so for sexual or labor exploitation.
Racketeering
RICO was designed to combat organized crime by allowing criminal charges based on a pattern of underlying criminal acts. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 there is a list of “predicate offenses,” and at least two of those crimes can create the needed pattern for prosecution. But there is no established RICO pattern here because there are no established predicate crimes. An effort by the Biden administration to designate political opponents as “racketeers” would raise deeply troubling concerns about weaponizing the criminal justice system.
Illegal transport
One of the most-cited bases for criminal prosecution has been 8 U.S. Code § 1324, which prohibits transporting or attempting to transport undocumented migrants. The law is designed to combat smugglers, not states offering free trips to those released into the country by the federal government. It requires an act of “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact” that the migrant “has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law.”
These trips, however, are not in violation of law or “in furtherance of such violation of law.” The Biden administration’s controversial “catch and release” policy means migrants are free to go anywhere or accept trips from public interest groups, the federal government or the states.
In theory, public interest groups arranging for transportation or individuals giving rides to migrants could be prosecuted on the same basis under Section 1324. In reality, if transporting undocumented migrants after they are released into the country is to be judged criminal, then the Biden administration would be the largest “coyote” in history.
None of this, of course, may prevent Attorney General Garland from using these wild accusations to launch a federal investigation. Biden officials are reportedly discussing options for legal action. Garland may yield to such demands. After all, he was criticized for creating a nationwide task force at the behest of school boards to investigate parents who publicly challenged board members over issues like teaching critical race theory or diversity policies. Such a move would magnify concerns about the Justice Department being used for political purposes before the midterm election.
The governors’ critics are correct: These trips are politically motivated. That is precisely why the proper response is also political, not criminal. Using the criminal code to amplify political points is a dangerous precedent. Frustrating though it may be for sanctuary cities to face an influx of undocumented migrants, criminal irony still is not an offense under the federal code.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
I’m surprised it took the Republican governor of Deep Blue Massachusetts to inadvertently come up with the perfect deterrent to Biden’s open-borders policy. In states where Biden’s midnight “ghost flights” dump migrants, as DeSantis did in Martha’s Vineyard, governors can order the state’s national guard to round the migrants up and bus them to empty barracks in some remote military base like that one in Cape Cod. There they could await their asylum hearing, which at current backlogs should come in four or five years.
Instead of Remain in Mexico, remain confined to a U.S. military base for a few years. Almost as effective as RIM was in deterring border jumpers with a policy, not with a wall. I say “almost,” but not quite, because free iPhones, food stamps, debit cards and three-hots-and-a-cot will still look pretty attractive to many from third world hellholes like Venezuela.
Still worth a try, you red state governors.
While I like your idea, the reality is that our military bases do not have the available capacity to house 2,000,000 illegal aliens pending their immigration hearings. Perhaps our woke colleges and universities could double up in their dorms and house a million or so. This would clearly demonstrate their true commitment to diversity, inclusion and equity.
Don’t give up on Ogre’s idea quite yet. Whereas the south is where almost all active military bases are and those bases would not have room-*, I’m thinking there are some places in Northern NY state, North Dakota, Montana, and maybe even Alaska that are open for migrants until the hearings are convened. The buildings in Massachusetts were not active; they are former Air Force barracks that were abandoned about 20 years ago
*Which is why — by the way — the southern states get higher per capita Federal outlays. It has nothting to do with blue states sending money to red states
The two planes in question originate at Lakeland AFB, TX and terminate at Martha’s Vineyard, MA. Why did they stop at Crenshaw, FL?
Professor, as I stated in my replays on two other blog-posts, I am positive that comments on this political motivated move completely distracts from the underlying immigration topic (which covered in a very small part for the 1st time).
As I miss in all of your three columns the fallout for those who were transported, I provide you with facts which may help you to incorporate in your next column.
Reports have it, that all/most of them came from Venezuela [1-2] to the US to build a better life, find work and help their families back home. They recently crossed the border in TX, stayed in a shelter in San Antonio, TX [3], and were approached by a woman named “Perla” who offered them transportation to Boston, MA. It’s vague if “Perla” was affiliated with either TX or FL state governments.
3. According to a spokesperson to Governor Gregg Abbott, TX, office was not involved in transportation to Martha’s Vineyard, MA but they had conversations with Governor Ron DeSantis, FL and his team about supporting overrun border communities.
Two Fairchild Dornier 328-310 Jets [4-5] with a flight range of 1,400 nm were used:
N359SK: SKF-CEW-CLT-MVY This plane had a layover at ACY
N411FJ: SKF-CEW-SPA-MVY This play had a layover at LBE before flying to ACY
I hope that DeSantis will provide a reasonable answer when ask why Floridian taxpayer pay the bill for a transportation from Lakeland AFB, TX to Martha’s Vineyard, MA. Only because they make an unnecessary detour for a stop at Bob Sikes AP at Crestview, FL?
As immigration law offers a wide range of legal businesses, lawyers, give their take which benefits Venezuelan border crossers could gain, which was extensively covered by media outlets [6-7]
[1] On 7/11/22, DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said: “As one of my first actions as Secretary, I designated Venezuela for TPS. After careful consideration, and in consultation with the Secretary of State, today I am extending that designation to 3/10/24. This action is one of many ways the Biden administration is providing humanitarian support to Venezuelans at home and abroad, together with our regional partners. We will continue to work with our international partners to address the challenges of regional migration while ensuring our borders remain secure.”
[2] While Approx 343K individuals are estimated to be eligible for TPS under the existing designation of Venezuela those Venezuelans who arrived in US after 3/8/21, are not eligible for TPS.
[3] Nearest border town is Eagle Pass, TX, approx. 150 miles away. Across river Rio Grande/Bravo is Piedras Negras, MX
[4] The 30 seats planes were operated by Ultimate Air Shuttle, a private charter carrier, based in Cincinnati, OH.
[5] “Great Circle Mapper” gives you an idea about flight path. If interested, copy legs and click on maps.
[6] https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/politics-issues/2022-09-18/flying-migrants-to-massachusetts-was-political-critics-say-but-was-it-legal
[7] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ron-desantis-migrants-marthas-vineyard-1234594051
So you’re basically asking why they weren’t shipped directly to Martha’s Vineyard, without any “detour” to Florida? If there’s another salient point in that long post, it’s well hidden.
Maybe you can answer that question:
Why doe Floridian taxpayer pay the bill for a transportation from Lakeland AFB, TX to Martha’s Vineyard, MA.?
Why do US taxpayers pay the bill to transport these people all over the country all the time ?
You want open borders ? Fine. Do so without placing the burden of these people on others who do not choose to take it.
No free anything, no plane rides, no free ride on trespassing and destruction of the property of others.
No free medical care, no free education.
I propose new immigration law.
Anyone from anywhere who wishes to come to the US may do so, contingent on:
having a sponsor who takes full legal responsibility for the immigrant for 5 years.
Government pays NOTHING.
If they become a burden that government must cover – the sponsor foots the bill.
Anyone can sponsor whoever they like. Individuals, businesess, charities can sponsor immigrants.
Sponsors, can have a hands on or hands off role as they choose. Some left wing 501C3 can sponsor 100’s of immigrants from Hondorus doing no more than signing off on them. It can leave them completely on their own.
So long as should they become a cost to government the sponsor foots the bill.
John, please don’t shoot the messenger!
Your proposal has neither a route to pass Congress nor does it fit to our immigration system:
Let me start at the border and let it be if the undocumented people (7K/day) get in contact with CBP at a point of entry or elsewhere. With or without the help of an accredited representative they apply for Asylum (form I-589 five months later they can apply for employment authorization, form I-765) get a case #, a prepaid phone and were released while they await their court proceedings [refugee status depends on INA § 101(a)(42) and should be decided within six months]
Let’s assume they were released at Eagle Pass, TX (population: 30K) and have to travel and live on own dime. That is a huge problem for people but also for the government. Remember as it was heavily broadcasted that 15K mostly Haitians encamped underneath the international bridge in Del Rio, TX? Within days, the where gone! That such unpleasant situations never happen again, we do have the FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter Program. the American Rescue Plan, and nonprofit organizations, in part funded by the government, they are supportive of immigration. They take care that the Asylum seeker get a lift let say to San Antonio, TX, 150 miles away, find a shelter and have something to eat and drink. Problem it’s impossible, that stay there until their case is settled. DHS offers free bus or plane rides into inland using huge aircrafts such as Boeing 767-200 (seats 213-218 people), Boeing 767-300 (seats 243-272) up through Boeing 777-200 (seats 381 people). If this is good for our country, why does the government fly during dark-time, let not track flights in part or switch airports if a Pax-load is pictured. To talk about these issues, help.addressing SW border crises. 48 CBP released Venezuelans on two commuter jets from SKF to MVY not. A stop at CEW to hand out maps is a detour that ads to pollution. To let Floridian taxpayers to pick up the bill is shabby.
“Your proposal has neither a route to pass Congress nor does it fit to our immigration system”
That is fine with me. I do not presume I have some right to the immigration system I want, or I think is best.
If I can not get my reforms or something like them through congress – SO BE IT.
Then we enforce the immigration laws we have.
We build the wall which has been required by law since the mid 80’s
Anyone picked up in the US illegally within 100m of the border gets a choice – be deported instantly, or wait – I beleive 15 days (it may be a little longer) and face an immigration hearing that will result in a criminal conviction of illegally crossing the border and they will be inneligable to get an for or legal entry for many years, and they will be deported without hearing immediately if they are apprehended again – or jailed for some period of time and then removed.
There are very limited criteria for Asylum in US law, very very very few immigrants meet it.
And if you do not meet those requirements for asylum, the only way in is the immigration lottery and your odds there are tiny.
I am paraphrasing, but that is approximately our immigration law.
If you are unwilling to sit down and work together to change it.
Then you are stuck with what we have and the executive branch is obligated to enforce the law as it is, not the made up version that appeals to the left.
And those who refuse to do so – should be impeached and removed.
“ There are very limited criteria for Asylum in US law, very very very few immigrants meet it.”
That is technically correct. However your limited knowledge of immigration law neglects the fact that the government still has to determine each asylum applicant’s claims first. Since the number of applicants is quite large they are legally allowed to stay in the country until their hearing determining their asylum status.
The courts and staff charged with making such determinations is currently overwhelmed and working diligently to process all the applications as quickly as possible. Because the LAW requires that determination first before they can be deported or accepted they ARE legally allowed to temporarily stay here and that means they can travel to where they can be close to where their hearings are held or with relatives already legally in the country.
The executive branch IS enforcing the law. The problem is conservatives and republicans don’t like the law. Rather than try to change it they are deliberately impeding it in order to “prove” the law doesn’t work.
A person apprehended or “presenting” themselves on the sovereign soil of the United States is not an “asylum applicant”. He/she is an “alien”, “entering or attempting to enter the US at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers”. As such, they are subject to both criminal and civil sanctions. Catch and release is not enforcement of current law. 8 U.S. Code § 1325
Are you guilty of willful ignorance or just lying because you can?
NO people are not legally allowed to remain in the US while asking for asylum.
If you crossed the border illegally – you do not even get to raise an asylum claim – atleast not if the law is followed.
If you apply at a consulate or embassy – you wait in your own country except for extraordinary cases.
If you apply at a port of entry, you can be given a court date and told to “remain in mexico”.
There is absolutely no legal obligation for the US to allow asylum applicants to wait for a court date IN THE US.
There is no requirement to allow them to even cross the border.
I would note – none of these is new. It has been that way forever.
What varies – between presidents is whether a president CHOSES to allow you to enter.
If you cross illegally – you are now entitled to US due process – because you are in the US.
But that due process extends only so far as a fair hearing for the charge of crossing illegally followed by deportation.
Like any other crime – the government can detain you awaiting the hearing, or it can release you.
These people have no jobs, no assets, can not make bail if it were offered, so even the most lenient standard actually intended to have them show up would result in detention. But Pelosi and democrats cut funding for detention.
making it more difficult to detain people.
Detaining them is the quickest way to deport them. They wait a short period, there is no problem with their showing up – they are being detained. At the hearing – they are deported.
And that is the end.
If they are released, then they do not show up for their hearing. warrants are issued, they become entitled to due process on the warrant, as well as the underlying charge. Put simply if the executive does not want to deport, they can allow the illegal immigrant to stall for years. But the end is still the same. All that is different is that the law is not being enforced. The rule of law is lost and the president is lawless.
Your are sort of correct that those who manage to cross the border – illegally, have a right to remain in the US awaiting a hearing – which will nearly always be on the illegal border crossing. Giving then an asylum request form is just raising false hopes.
They are NOT however entitled to be released. That is a decision of the courts. I would note that the vast majority of these people do not have legal relatives living in the US. They are not supposed to be legally allowed to work – though aparently biden has found a way to circumvent that – again illegally.
One of the things that sometimes works is having a child in the US. That child is automatically a citizen.
It is a so called anchor baby. It has rights the immigrant family does not. Nor did the child illegally enter the country.
Regardless, shoudl that occur it can massiviely complicate due process.
There are also complications for children brought accross the border. Depending on their age they can not commit a crime, which means that the child can request asylum even though the parents can’t. While a minor crossing the border illegally is not as legally potent as an anchor baby, it still a means to get additional due process – delay.
This is so well known that most of the family units crossing – arent. Traffickers are essentially selling children to make fake families.
These are not undocumented people. These are illegal aliens. They have evaded the legal means of immigrating. migrating, even visiting the US. Illegal alien is the correct legal term.
They have violated our laws. In many cases they could be put into federal prison according to the law – just for crossing the border illegally, and then deported.
The laws of nations are important. Brittney Griner knew that she was violating Russian law, but she either thought she was priviledged or that it was just a little law, or that Russia was corrupt and it would be ignored.
But it was not, and now she is in a Russian hellhole prison. With little prosects of release. And any hope of relase will require the US to trade people who committed RELA SERIOUS crimes in the US to rescue her priviledged ass.
And if she was not a top US women’s basketball player – she would rot.
We do not have to like the laws of other nations. But if we go to those nations – we must follow their laws, or face their consequences. The same is true of those coming to the US.
They did not accidentally forget their drivers license.
If you must play games with language as the means of trying to game the argument then why should anyone trust you ?
I do not know what your politics are and I do not care. If you play games with words – why should I trust that if you and I or our elected reps sit down and negotiate new law, that we both can live with – that you will follow it ?
Or that you will not just change the meaning of the words to avoid complying with the law ?
This is one of the reasons that the words of a law (or the constitution) MUST mean, what the people who drafted and ratified it used as meaning. That is stable. it is unchanging. If we do not like it we can change the law or constitution and then OUR words define the meaning until another generation changes the constitution or law again.
This is a requirement of the rule of law. Laws that it is possible for everyone to know and understand.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But law that is not clear is.
“ These are not undocumented people. These are illegal aliens. They have evaded the legal means of immigrating. migrating, even visiting the US. Illegal alien is the correct legal term.
They have violated our laws. In many cases they could be put into federal prison according to the law – just for crossing the border illegally, and then deported.”
Not all of them. But if they illegally cross and present themselves to authorities seeking asylum as per the law they are considered to be legally here until their asylum claims can be verified. That is the law as written. Until they are deemed ineligible for asylum they are by law considered temporarily LEGAL aliens. Many actually thought thru a border crossing and directly claim asylum as the law says they should.
Trump changed the law by executive order when he was in office. Biden changed it back as it was his prerogative. Congress could have changed the law to match Trump’s executive order and made it permanent, but it didn’t.
That is not the law, and Trump did not change it via executive order.
It is a crime to cross the US border except at a point of entry.
That crime makes you ineligable for entry for several years.
What Trump changes was “catch and release”.
The Obama policy of catching these people and then releasing them rather than detaining them.
Once they are released the requirement for expedited disposition goes away.
Further if the get more than 100M away from the border even if subsequently picked up they are not immediately deported. Regardless, once you cross the border illegally – your hearing will be about the crime of crossing the border and if found guilty you will be deported, and ineligible to return.
There are no short cuts – except those that Obama and Biden have manufactured from thin air.
There is little to FIX beyond that the current system gives the outcome that the american people want – if actually followed, not the one you want.
Follow the law. Trump conclusively demonstrated that illegal immigration dwindles to a trickle if you do.
AND drug traffic decreases, AND human trafficiking decreases, AND the rape of immigrants decreases, AND the numbers dying in the journey decreases, AND the number who even try decreases.
All BTW without your diplomatic efforts or foriegn aide.
Remain in Mexico was an Trump policy. One that Biden is trying to wriggle out of without actually rescinding it.
Another game those on the left play. They do not want to take the flack for formally acting, so they do so lawlessly.
Regardless, the US had to negotiate with mexico to implement “remain in mexico”
But it circumvented US courts – who have no jurisdiction in mexico.
Immigrants who wish to enter the US who have not crossed the border yet – have no US rights and US courts have no jurisdiction. US law needs not be followed in mexico, as I recall the process was either they filed for asylum from mexico, or they were caught crossing illegally and returned to mexico for detention. Regardless, they eventually reached a US court date, they were brought over, they lost with rare exceptions and were deported.
You keep constantly ignoring the fact that by law but for a tiny number these people may not legally remain in the US.
Whether they are deported for illegally crossing the border or for want of a valid asylum claim. at best only a few thousand of these people will ever qualify to legally remain. The difference between Biden, Obama and Trump is just how long before they are removed. Biden and Obama ignored the law as much as possible to delay the inevitable.
My wife has immigration lawyers as friends no one wins in immigration court – pretty much ever.
Not under Obama, not under Trump, not under Biden.
What is different is merely how quickly they end up in court.
The mess you described is the result not of our law – but by the bastardization of our law by those currently in power.
If you did not cross legally – you can not apply for asylum.
If you did not cross legally and you do not agree to immediate deportation – if you request a hearing, you could be convicted of illegal entry, and then you will not be able to apply for asylum or enter by any other legal means for many years.
If you were previously convicted of illegal entry – you are just removed immediately when caught.
Further our Actual immigration law expected that those apprehended as suspected illegal aliens in the US would be detained until their hearing dates and then deported.
But as the numbers have grown – congress has refused to allocate the funds to detain illegal aliens, so they end up being released and now the process becomes essentially infinite.
“ If you did not cross legally – you can not apply for asylum.”
That is false. Crossing illegally does not stop anyone from claiming asylum. For example. Cuban political refugees who arrived on shore in Florida illegally crossed a border. Upon surrendering to law enforcement or CBP and ask for asylum it is legal and not only part of U.S. law, but international law as well. Crossing a land border applies just as landing on the beach in Florida.
“ But as the numbers have grown – congress has refused to allocate the funds to detain illegal aliens, so they end up being released and now the process becomes essentially infinite.”
You can thank republicans for not providing the extra funds required. Democrats have been asking for funding repeatedly in order to deal with the increasing influx. That doesn’t fix the problem of people coming in. One of the solutions is to fix the problems or deal with them at the source. Which is where state department comes in. Addressing problems thru diplomacy and trade are much more effective than dealing with the problems at the border.
“That is false. Crossing illegally does not stop anyone from claiming asylum. For example. Cuban political refugees who arrived on shore in Florida illegally crossed a border. Upon surrendering to law enforcement or CBP and ask for asylum it is legal and not only part of U.S. law, but international law as well. Crossing a land border applies just as landing on the beach in Florida.”
Aparently you are unfamiliar with law and history. While we have bent over backwards to acomodate those fleeing Cuba. For the most part the law is the same.
As a rule Cubans want to be picked up by the coast guard.
Regardless except specific instances where congress has acted if you enter the US illegally from Cuba – you are deported.
What often happens is that we deport them to someplace Other than Cuba, where they then seek to enter the US at a port of entry.
There are some very specific legal complexities regarding Cuba. Anyone expecting US law to be consistent is nuts.
And congress has in the past passed Cuba specific laws. But we have also deported lots of cubans – some back to Cuba.
“You can thank republicans for not providing the extra funds required.”
Nope, Republicans both under Trump and Biden have been completely willing to fund expanding detention centers – provifing more beds so that thes epeople can be detained for the short time before their criminal hearing and they are deported. Democrat refuse to increase the size of detention fascilities.
“Democrats have been asking for funding repeatedly in order to deal with the increasing influx.”
But not to follow the law. to do things outside the law.
“That doesn’t fix the problem of people coming in.”
Enforcing the law – which BTW does not require more funding does fix the problem.
When it is obvious these people will not be able to get in.
They will quit coming.
Nothing has changed since Trump except the expectation of these people that they will be able to stay.
“One of the solutions is to fix the problems or deal with them at the source.”
Nope, Doubly wrong. Nearly all of the world is poorer than the US.
Nearly all of the world is twice as rich as it was 40 years ago.
It is not possible for the US to provide enough foreign aide that immigrating to the US will not always be attractive.
I am glad that people want to come here.
Generally I want them too – immigration is mostly self selecting for exactly the people we should want in this country.
But that does not alter the fact that it is also harmful to the US working class.
Regardless, coming to the US is not a right.
Nor is having a standard of living in your own country that is better.
While the US – short of the working class would be better off if these people came here – their own countries would be worse. Immigration is self selecting for the people a country needs to retain.
Next, Once again charity is not a legitimate role of government.
“Which is where state department comes in. Addressing problems thru diplomacy and trade are much more effective than dealing with the problems at the border”
What is your idea of a diplomatic solution – that countries that are having problems keeping their own people should oppress them even further ?
If these countries actually wanted to keep these people – they would have figured out how to long ago.
Trade is trivial and does not require state department.
End all foreign tarrifs except those specifically tied to national security.
There is no rational economic argument for trade restrictions.
The country with the lowest trade barriers always wins.
We do not need the state department to address that.
I was born in 1958. Since then there are very very very few things that the US state department has ever gotten right.
Why do you think they can help with this ?
It is not like they are good at what they do.
I would note that the same is true of other federal departments.
The FBI was politically corrupt when I was a child.
The only difference today is the direction of their corruption.
It is hard pressed to thnk of anything they are necescary for.
The current legal requirements for asylum are incredibly narrow. Almost no one is granted asylum if the law is actually followed. Asylum is fundimntally reserved for the victims of political repression in foreign governments. As an example people fleeing communist regimes who will be imprisoned and probably tortured if they are returned.
It does not apply just because government is corrupt, or poor or your husband beats you.
I would have no problem expanding the basis for asylum
If I could trust that those changing the law would not do as they do with current law – and just ignore it.
“ The current legal requirements for asylum are incredibly narrow. Almost no one is granted asylum if the law is actually followed. Asylum is fundimntally reserved for the victims of political repression in foreign governments. As an example people fleeing communist regimes who will be imprisoned and probably tortured if they are returned.”
This is what the migrants DeSantis illegally took to Martha’s Vineyard were. They were Venezuelans seeking legally seeking asylum because they were indeed victims of political repression. This is why the government didn’t categorize them as “illegal immigrants”, or unauthorized aliens”. Desantis directly violated Florida law when he used money to transport these legal asylum seekers to from Texas to Massachusetts. Florida law specifically states that the money he used is for the transportation of unauthorized aliens FROM THE STATE. Not from another state. They were also not “unauthorized aliens” according to the wording of the law. Narrowly and literally interpreted Florida law did not authorize the governor to use that money as he did.
To add to the problem DeSantis created is the fact that he also violated federal law when the legal migrants were convinced under false pretenses to “voluntarily” board those planes to “Boston”. That is fraudulent according to the law.
With specific respect to Venezuelans you MIGHT have a point.
I am not specifically familiar with the current US Asylum position with respect to Venezuela.
Though I actually suspect that you are wrong.
Regardless, if Venezuelans qualify for asylum under current laws give it to them.
Of course if they qualify – they should have entered at a port of entry.
I would also give those coming from Hong Kong asylum – Trump could have. but he did not.
Biden could, but so far he has not.
To be clear the current asylum law is in my view way too narrow.
But IT IS CURRENT LAW. My wanting it broader does not mean I can have what I want.
Whether Venezuelans or Hong Kongers qualify for asylum is something the country should decide as a whole.
Not you and I alone.
If we are going to expand that to Guatemala and Hondourus – again something that we debate publicly and resolve in the law.
If we are going to accept 2M people a year because of economic hardship – again WE must change the law.
It is irrelevant to issues regarding DeSantis and MV whether these were legitimate asylum seekers or not.
TX did not want them.
FL did not want them.
MV did not want them.
But only MV was hypocritical about it.
If they did not cross the border at a port of entry and did not request asylum when they crossed,
They are illegal aliens and not legally entitled to asylum.
So yes, whether you are sympathetic to them or not. They are still illegal aliens.
Why do you think I beleive you regarding Florida law ?
You do not have a track record of being honest or accurate about any law.
Svelaz, you are likely as ignorant about federal law as you are about state law.
Regardless, it is established law that Governors – States can not deport illegal immigrants.
There is virtually nothing else regarding what states can do that is established.
These immigrants were taken off MV by Bus to a closed military base.
It is highly unlikely they consented to that.
They were escorted by National Guard – not what you do with people who have consented.
If DeSantis violated Federal law – so did MV and MA.
But that is near certain false.
It is near ceetain True that DeSantis can round up illegals and put them on a plane to anywhere in the US – BY force.
Just as they were near certainly removed from MV by FORCE.
When you put up neon billboards saying “come to the US, we are not going to enforce our own laws”
That is when you get the mess we have today.
Whether you like Trump or hate him – the problems at the southern border were a fraction of what they are today.
The law did not change.
The world did not change.
The only thing that changed is we changed to a president who is lawless.
If we have a humanitarian crisis in El PAso or elswhere – the currnet occupant of the whitehouse is to blame.
I would note – I have said that I will agree to many changes to our immigration laws.
But NOT ones that create “moral hazard” – that is quite literally the mess you are describing.
It is actually quite hard to get law right. Law that often sounds good proves bad because of bad incentives, unintended consequences and shallow thinking.
But when we follow the law, we can see where it does not work and fix it.
When we have what we have now – with those on the left just making things up as they go along.
That creates the crisises that you are complaining about.
“ When you put up neon billboards saying “come to the US, we are not going to enforce our own laws”
That is when you get the mess we have today.”
That is false. We do enforce our own laws. The problem is republicans and conservatives or critics of Biden don’t like the current laws or refuse to fund the agencies that are charged with enforcing it. The lack of resources and lawmakers holding back funding so they can make it look bad for political gain are a much bigger problem.
We ARE following the law and we ARE seeing where it needs fixing. The problem is republicans in congress don’t want it fix the problems because it will remove the incentive to criticize the current administration for “not enforcing the current laws”.
Republicans are just as guilty about this mess as those trying to enforce the law.
“That is false. We do enforce our own laws. The problem is republicans and conservatives or critics of Biden don’t like the current laws or refuse to fund the agencies that are charged with enforcing it. The lack of resources and lawmakers holding back funding so they can make it look bad for political gain are a much bigger problem.”
This is sooo false and soooo obviosuly stupid.
Almost 5million people did not come to the US in the past 22 months because Kamala went to Cental america and said DO NOT COME (which she actually did).
This is free markets in action – just like with natural disasters.
These peopel are comming en masse because the KNOW they will get it.
Because the KNOW they will be able to stay for a while.
They came in far fewer numbers under Trump because they KNEW they would be stopped.
The KNEW they would not be able to stay.
Very little has changed between Trump and Biden with respect tot he southern border EXCEPT for the non-existant enforcement of immigration laws under Biden.
Next Biden does not want money to enforce immigration laws.
If he did he would be asking for money to build the wall, money for more detention beds. Moeny to enforce the law,
to stop people from entering. To catch those that do, to detain them until a criminal hearing and to deport them after the hearing. To keep them in Mexico where possible.
All things Trump did that conformed with existing immigration law and WORKED, not perfectly but far better.
Biden wants money transport these people elsewhere, to put them on assistance to provide them with medical care to make them eligable for jobs.
You can agree with those choices – but they are NOT part of our existing law.
Further they will and are ATTRACTING more illegal immigrants.
For most people it is easy to understand that millions of people do not try to enter the US when that is made incredibly hard and when they will be unsuccessful
Conversely the easier you make it the more people you will get.
This is basic economics.
If you want more immigrants – be open about it. If you want more – change the law. Democrats and republicans have been fighting over immigration law for decades. We are stuck with what we have now – what Trump followed and what Biden has not, because of that impasse.
Republicans are not going to capitulate to democrats on this issue for many trivially easy to understand reasons.
The first of which is that the losers in mass immigration are working class voters that republicans have very effectively courted. These used to be solid democrat voters. They are rapidly becoming solid republican voters.
There is no possibility that Republicans are going to screw them. If they do they will near instantly become a permanent minority party.
That is the political facts of life.
For democrats Immigration is increasingly and issue for white mostly northern democrats who are busy virtue signalling and like those at Martha’s vineyard can not tolerate being around an actually immigramt for 2 whole days.
These people have no connection to either actual immigrants or real working class voters. So their views of immigration have no cost to them.
I can make an excellent economic argument for lawful mass immigration. BUT
Neither the right nor the left are EVER going to do what is needed for lawful mass immigration.
And even if it can be structured as economically net positive – which it can. It will still screw atleast for a decade working class voters.
“We ARE following the law and we ARE seeing where it needs fixing.”
The law does NOT need fixing. If enforced it works exactly as those who crafted it wanted.
No you are not following it.
When you say “needs fixing” – it is not about fixing it, it is about fundamental change, it is about the fact that the law is NOT consistent with YOUR values.
That is perfectly OK. – But you are NOT entitled to impose your values on the country by force because you have tenuous control of parts of the government.
If you want immigration law to reflect your values – which is what you mean by fixed, then CHANGE THE LAW.
Make the arguments to the people for what you want.
But you are not doing that, you are instead ignoring much of the law and doing as you please lawlessly without public support.
“The problem is republicans in congress don’t want it fix the problems because it will remove the incentive to criticize the current administration for “not enforcing the current laws”.”
No, they do not want the same thing as you. Neither they nor their base, nor much of the country wants what you want, values what you value. That is OK, EXCEPT that those of you on the left never take NO for an answer.
This administration could trivially avoid republican criticism on this issue.
All that would be needed would be to complete the wall and follow current immigration law as Trump did.
They could entirely take the issue away from republicans.
We have a conflict because Democrats WANT different law – but the COUNTRY does not.
and instead of accepting that they are trying to achive what they want lawlessly.
“Republicans are just as guilty about this mess as those trying to enforce the law.”
You keep trying to make a moral issue out of this, without proper moral foundations.
Republicans have different values than you. That is OK. But existing law favors them.
You are the group that is seeking change. You are required to get the supermajority support to effectuate that change.
Republicans are free to sit on their hands thwart you and blame you for the mess you created.
Lets be honest – the left does not WANT the limited illegal immigration that occured under Trump,
It is perfectly OK to not want that.
It is not OK to go rogue to get it.
Change the law, and if you can not, live with the law we have.
But you are not, or atleast should not, succeed in changing the law, without being truthful with people about what you want.
If you think your values on education are so great – do not hide them behind lawlessness.
Do you want 2+M more immigrants per year or don’t you ?
If you do – change the law.
If you don’t – enforce the law.
No matter what BE HONEST.
Like those at Martha’s vinyard who are an immigrant sanctuary in name only – you are NOT HONEST.
Not even with yourself.
You will not get my support for any immgration reform at all.
Until:
You are honest about what you actually want.
You are prepared to enforce the laws we have if you do not get your way.
You address exactly how you are going to make a tripling or more of immigration work.
We did not have FEMA for most of the history of the US.
There was no FEMA at the time of the johnstown flood.
Yet within a year it was as if the flood never occured.
New Orleans still has damage from Katrina that was not fixed.
While Texas which was hit probably worse years later fully recovered within a year.
Economic analysis by George Mason University found that the most effective response to natural disasters today is PRIVATE. It is WallMart, and Denny’s and Home Depot and similar businesses.
The left caterwalls about price gouging – which BTW serves a very important economic purpose and thwarting it makes things work WORSE.
Lets say that water in New Orleans is in demand after a disaster. If the price and supply do not change – water will be horded and those with the most money will horde lots of water they do not use. If the price rises people become more and more likely to only take what they need – because everyone knows that soon enough the price will drop.
Back to the private response to disasters. Nearly every business that is not brain dead big or small knows that what they do in the time of a disaster is what will earn the loyalty of cusotmers for years to come.
Walmart prestages the supplies that will be needed after a disaster just outside the disaster area. Ready to rush in and stock stores the moment FEMA will let them in. Often the biggest impediment to recovery is FEMA.
I remember when Sandy flooded the Atlantic City Island. Many houses had sea water a foot up the walls on their first floors.
If people are able to get back quickly they MIGHT be able to radically reduce damages just by getting things dry faster.
Mold has an exponential growth rate. Get started immediately and get things dry and you can possibly save walls and carpet. But even if you can’t – get the carpet out and the lowest foot of wallboard out and the rest can be saved
But 2 days later – the entire first floor must be demolished.
Gov. Christy kept people off the atlantic city Island for many days exponentially increasing the amount of damage.
I recall a story about a Walmart in New Orleans. The store manager arrived, the store was a mess. There was looting and water damage and product all over. And she had 8hrs to get the store ready for truckloads of all the things people would need that were arriving. She took a bulldozer and pushed much of the contents of the store out into the parking lot and put a “FREE” sign on it. And she was ready when the trucks arrived with all the things that people were going to need RIGHT NOW. Walmart promoted her.
You can be some left wing nut that absolutely hates Walmart. If there is a natural disaster – and they are there for you – with a cup of coffee and the things you need. You will remember for years to come.
Every single Denny’s in the US has a disaster plan. Denny’s managers are instructed to stay open if humanly possible no matter what. To give food away for free. If there is no electric to make sandwiches.
What ever it takes stay open or reopen as soon as possible. Lose money, but feed people.
Because people will remember.
Whether you like it or not the reality is that FEMA, and the federal government and even to a lessor extent even local governments are not what brings about recovery after a disaster.
One of the gentleman arrested at J6 for an altercation with a police officer.
Was a private person who made the national news for getting boats and going out into flooded new orleans after Katrina to rescue dogs. He received accolades, tons of donations – which he used to start an official pet rescue business. He claims that he stayed out of things – until he saw the black female police officer kicking the shit out of Rose Boylan – the other woman who died at the capital. He intervenied and tried to shelter Boylan and drag her to safety and for his efforts he will spend years in jail.
“ New Orleans still has damage from Katrina that was not fixed.
While Texas which was hit probably worse years later fully recovered within a year.”
New Orleans is in Louisiana which is a very, very poor state that had very few resources to deal with a catastrophe like Katrina. On top of that the majority of the state’s infrastructure was poorly maintained or none at all due to constant deferments because of lack of funds. But they sure love their low taxes right? New Orleans had multiple opportunities to improve or upgrade their infrastructure or their own representatives seek federal funds for that. Obviously as an analysis after the disaster showed they ignored that.
Texas is far has far more money to deal with natural disasters than Louisiana and they actually invest in their infrastructure more often than Louisiana does.
“ The left caterwalls about price gouging – which BTW serves a very important economic purpose and thwarting it makes things work WORSE.”
No. Price gouging during a disaster is does not serve an important economic purpose. It only benefits those engaging in it. You used water as an example. Water is a vital necessity during a disaster and profiting from that necessity is not only unethical but just plain wrong. When people are in desperate situations from such disasters it’s EASIER to take advantage to make a profit over other’s problems. That is not only morally wrongly, but just plain wrong period. FEMA coordinates with private companies to provide supplies where they are needed. They still get paid for the supplies. It’s not “free”.
FEMA has the authority to coordinate and direct where supplies go according the most need. Those engaging in price gouging are only motivated by profit rather than need. When the government distributes water for free it eliminates the problem of leaving those who cannot pay for a basic necessity with a choice during a stressful and vulnerable time. That shouldn’t be part of the equation. That’s why we pay taxes for. So people3 don’t have to worry about being further harmed by price gougers and unscrupulous opportunists.
“New Orleans is in Louisiana which is a very, very poor state that had very few resources to deal with a catastrophe like Katrina. On top of that the majority of the state’s infrastructure was poorly maintained or none at all due to constant deferments because of lack of funds. ”
So your argument is that because Lousiana has done a $hitty job in the past they are entitled to a bailout. but because Texas has done well they are not ?
New Orleans was one of the most prosperous cities in the US for centuries.
Louisiana is on the Mississippi which has been incredilbly important for trade even today.
Louisiana has incredibly rich farmland and will continue to forever because of the missippi.
Texas is almost entirely a hot desert.
Neither individually nor in groups are we entitled to make demands on others because of our own failures.
We are each free to aide those less fortunate – though none of us, not even all of us can actually fix the problems of poverty. The only correction for poverty is actual prosperity which only comes from the free markets that you leftists hate.
We are not free to force others to provider assistance to anyone.
“No. Price gouging during a disaster is does not serve an important economic purpose.”
And yet both reality and actual economics tell us unequivacally otherwise.
What you call price gouging is the law of supply in demand in action.
The law of supply and demand is immutable. That means that though you can distort the markets – you can not actually stop the laws of supply and demand.
If you prevent prices from adjusting to demand – supply becomes restricted.
The converse of price gouging is hording. When you regulate price you get hording.
If you succeed in fixing prices, if you succeed in preventing hording (neither of which will actually happen),
then supply will automatically shrink. People will not produce if they can not profit.
During a disaster many enterprising people go to their local walmart or home depot or elsewhere and they buy water, generators, gasoline – whatever they think can be sold at significant profit and they take risks transporting those supplies to where they are most in demand – where they are most needed.
To profit they must do so long BEFORE – FEMA, or Walmart or others get there.
Frequently they travel backroads, and riskier paths – to avoid FEMA or law enforcement or all YOUR idiots trying to prevent “price gouging” – what is it that you accomplish by thwarting these gougers ?
You reduce the immediate supply to those in need.
I will further note that the process is self regaulating.
If I can take a van load of water to a disaster area and make $1000, then 10 other people will do the same.
The net result is that I only profit substantially when few others share the same idea,
I only profit when I provide those in a disaster area something they badly need.
Laws against price gouging prevent people from doing GOOD.
These laws are stupid and immoral.
The fact you can not grasp that is not something an intelligent person would want to admit.
https://cdn.mises.org/Defending_the_Undefendable_2018.pdf
I would refer you to chapters V and VI
“It only benefits those engaging in it.”
Obviously false. People will not pay more for something, if they do not benefit from it.
And the fact that people will pay more is exactly what drives others to correct the supply problem – increasing supply.
” You used water as an example. Water is a vital necessity during a disaster and profiting from that necessity is not only unethical but just plain wrong.”
Again stupid and false.
Every single one of us profits by exchanging value for value.
You trade your labor for pay – value for value.
If you can get someone else to pay you more – is that immoral ?
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
Adam Smith
Recovery from disaster is not the consequence of charity. It if from the self interest of those working to solve our problems. Sometimes that self interest is in the form of the short term profits of “price gougers”, who often take significant risks to deliver to those in great need a portion of what is in short supply that they are desparate for.
Sometimes that self interest is companies like Denny’s or Walmart who know that what appears to be charity today. is an investment in the trust of communities that are experiencing a disaster that will repay them many times in the future.
“When people are in desperate situations from such disasters it’s EASIER to take advantage to make a profit over other’s problems.”
Actually it is usually quite hard, as well as risky.
“That is not only morally wrongly, but just plain wrong period.”
Nope, it is actually morally good.
YOUR approach is morally wrong.
YOUR approach chokes supply when demand is the highest.
YOUR approach destroys the incentive of people to solve the problems of those who are most needy.
I would note that YOUR twisted idea of morality is not merely wrong here – it is universally wrong.
The person who supplies homeless drug addicts $hitty places to live for $100/month is actually doing GOOD for his own profit.
Several years ago, someone murdered a jewish slumlord in NYC. The city cam in and closed his properties as unihabitable, and drove all the addicts and homeless out. ON TO THE STREETS. For sometime after homeless deaths in NYC were substantially elevated, because that Slumlords $hitty 100/month shelter was all these people could afford, and when they were denied that, they froze to death or overdosed.
You idiot left wing nuts NEVER look at the actual consequences of your idiotic actions.
In your effort to do good, you do great harm.
Your idea of what is moral is IMMORAL.
“FEMA has the authority”
Not in the constitution.
“to coordinate and direct where supplies go according the most need.”
In the real world this does not work.
You actually seem to think that without government disaster assistance the world would fall apart.
In most of the world there is no FEMA. Through most of history there has been no FEMA.
I noted the infamous johnstown flood before. But history is full of examples – as well as full of examples of government malfeasance in managing disasters.
The SF earthquake and Fire – resulted in rebuilding SF, substantial amounts of that were completely private.
But government did step in and take control. One of the things they did was to severely restrict the Chinese.
While today this leaves us with Quaint chinatowns. It lead to 65 years of ethnic segraagation and ghetoing of the chinese not just in SF but throughout the US.
We should be able to tell from the Covid failures that government does not know how to manage resources. to direct them where they are needed most. Quite litterally that is ALWAYS what free markets are best at anf government is $hittiest at.
I remember the gnashing of teeth early in the pandemic, that we would have no PPE, no hand sanitzer, no ventalators.
But for a week or two at the very begining when demand artificially spiked ahead of real need,
where we ever not able to get what we needed ?
I have more masks and hand sanitizer in my home than I can ever possibly use – as do the majority of americans.
Briefly Elon Musk was working furiously on ventalators made from car parts. This died – because ultimately there was no shortage of ventalators, of PPE, of handsanitizer.
The only things we were short of during the entire pandemic where those government restricted – short of jobs, short of access to education, short of access to churches and community. Short of the foundations for mental health.
Conversely bad government policies resulted in all the drugs we could possibly want, as well as the resulting overdoses.
Globally the death rate has shotup – we are not only seeing all the additional deaths from Covid, but an increase in total death 3 times greater than explained by Covid. These are deaths from drug overdoses, suicides, from delayed cancer treatment – all of which were predicted by the “experts” that you silenced. As well as an incredible increase in deaths from cardio vascular issues – likely the result of adverse effects of mRNA vaccines. And weirdly these are occuring in the people who were least likely to die from Covid – in the young and in the heatlhy.
“Those engaging in price gouging are only motivated by profit rather than need.”
Yup and there efforts to profit assure that the needs of others are best met.
“When the government distributes water for free”
If that actually happened successfully – which it never does in time, then there would be no price gougers.
You really do not think do you ?
Am I going to go to my local Costco, buy $300 of water and fill the back of a van and drive to New Orleans where I expect to sell it for $3000, if when I get there government is handing out bottles for free ? Of course not.
The very existance of price gougers means that government has failed at what you claim is the answer.
I would further note that free water the government is providing – it comes from somewhere, and it too must be transported in. Government is not better at getting needed supplies to where they are required – it is worse FAR worse. Look at the supply chain mess. Entirely government.
Supplies from China were disrupted (and still continue to be) as China locksdown entirely large trade centers for weeks. The result is both spikes and shortage in supply.
As a result places like Port of LA face weeks with few ships followed by weeks of far more ships then can be handled.
But the inability of Port of LA to respond to demand spikes is the consequence of government control, unions deals that have much of the port of LA only operating 8 hours a day. Of CA laws that have shutdown independnet truckers who transport 40% of the goods from the Port of LA.
And what fixed the Supply chain crisis ? Shippers reallocating container-ships globally.
Port of LA handles the worlds largest container-ships. This is the cheapest way to transport goods across the pacific.
But these ships can not go through the panama canal, and can only go arround cape hope and cape horn at great risk and cost. But older smaller container-ships serve china to india and other asian routes. Ultimately these were pressed into service in cross pacific routes going through the panama canal and being unloaded at east coast ports.
This gave port of LA the respite to catch up on its backlog. And china to US east coast products are arriving more quickly not less.
The results of government mishandling have resulted in cascading supply chain problems throughout the world.
And in the end the free market adapted to govenrment mistakes and at small increases in costs still delivered what we want and need.
Just like price gougers.
Whenever people have an unmet need or want that they are prepared to pay for – someone will fill that need or want.
That is how markets work.
Govenrment is not capable of keeping up with the constant changes.
“it eliminates the problem of leaving those who cannot pay for a basic necessity with a choice during a stressful and vulnerable time.”
If it actually did there would be no price gougers – but in the real world – it does not.
“That shouldn’t be part of the equation.”
And it is not. FEMA is not actually worth a fraction of what we pay for it.
Do you honestly think free water delivered long after it is actually needed is worth hundreds of billions of dollars ?
“That’s why we pay taxes for.”
I agree we pay taxes for things like FEMA that are late, expensive, inefficient and interfere with the people actually solving the problems.
“So people3 don’t have to worry about being further harmed by price gougers and unscrupulous opportunists.”
More accurately we pay a fortune to not solve something you think is a problem, that is always solved by free markets.
How is it that the places in the world without FEMA manage (quite well).
How is it that people in disaster zones get the things FEMA does not provide or did not even think of them.
Walmart knows what people will need in a disaster right down to the flavor of pop tarts they will want.
Pop Tarts are food when there is no means to heat, they last without refrigeration. they are cheap, most people will eat them if that is all there is, few people are alergic to them, and strawberry is the most popular flavor in an emergency.
Walmart knows how many disposable diapers to send – as well as truckloads of bottled water.
Walmart has all of this prepositioned as close to where it is needed as possible anytime there is a natural disaster like a huricane where there is some warning. Walmart will get non-perishables – like bottled water. Into the disaster zone BEFORE the disaster if possible, and will have them waiting as close as possible the moment FEMA will allow transportation. Without FEMA supplies would arrive FASTER.
I am using Walmart as an example, but HomeDepot, CostCo, Lowes, Denny’s nearly every major chain has plans for these things – far better plans than FEMA. Further though smaller businesses usually do not plan years ahead for disasters, they are part of these communities, and it is in their interest to get up and running as fast as possible and to provide needed services to their communities as fast as possible.
Some see disaster as an opportunity to make short term money. Others see disaster as the opportunity to win over customers by being there when they are needed.
I would suggest reading
https://www.amazon.com/How-China-Became-Capitalist-Coase/dp/1137351438
as a means of understanding how economies work, and particularly how they work arround inevitably bad government.
I would suggest
I, Whiskey as a means of understanding a tiny bit of how complex markets actually are.
Far far far more complex than government could ever manage.
https://cei.org/i-whiskey/
The USSR failed and China adopted free markets because it is not possible for government to actually compete head to head with free markets.
And you magically think FEMA can do better than the USSR ?
It is increasingly evident to nearly everyone that Govenrment completely Botched Covid.
Just a few of recent studies:
Further analysis of the ONE Mask study in bangeledesh that showed a MINOR benefit of masks against Covid – about a 20 case reduction in about 60,000 people, has found that the statitical analysis of the study was botched and there was no benefit to masks.
There is not a single Controled study that has ever demonstrated effectiveness of masks against respiratory viruses.
Oh, and recent work has found not only that HCQ works propholatically and as a treatment against Covid, but it is particularly effective against Omicron, AND they have actually seen using electron microscopes exactly how it is working. It dramatically reduces the ability of the spike protein to attach to ACE2 receptors.
HCQ is NOT likely the best available treatment today. But the left’s pissing on it for the past two years has likely resulted in hundreds of thousands of additional deaths.
Social media companies have increasingly lifted their stupid bans against “misinformation” as so much of what they claimed was wrong is now proven right.
Free markets solve problems. Government makes problems.
Why is government paying private organizations to engage in charity ?
Charity is NOT the governments business.
Actual charities are not all that good at charity – but govenrment directly or indirectly is worse.
This is a great way to waste gobbs of money.
Worse we end up with government deciding which charities are good and which are evil.
Further many charities in the US are – or were religiously affiliated and government automatically disfavors those.
Leftist idiocy has all but destroyed the catholic hospital system in this country.
During my life time – even relatively recently as many as 1/3 of all hospitals in the US were catholic non-profits.
Now many of them are gone replaced by for profit hospitals.
The famous Obama era Case involving Little Sisters of the poor was really about driving the catholic church out of charity.
When the real meaning of the establishment clause is that if a government actions in a domain threatens to entangle it or create a conflict with religion – then it is Government that MUST yeild.
There is very very little that Government MUST do, and none of that is things that are typically or most ever done privately. Govenrment and private actors – for profit or charity should NEVER be in conflict or competition.
When they are – Government is operating out of bounds.
You keep saying “asylum seeker” – as if these really are people who might qualify for asylum.
They are not. When 99.999% do not meet the qualifications for asylum – then this is just about trying to game the system.
I am sympathetic to those seeking to come to this country – whether from india, or China or the philpeans or from Guatemala or Venezuela or Haiti.
I do not like the rules. I would change them.
But when we have government trying to game its own laws – we are lawless.
The rule of law has failed.
Sympathy compassion charity are private choices.
You are not free to use government to steal my money to engage in charity on my behalf.
That is immoral.
Why is it that you or anyone else is entitled to make my charitable choices for me ?
My daughter is adopted from China. She lived for 2 years in a really $hitty orphanage and that has had lifelong effects on her. As a result my family engages in charity for children in bad conditions throughout the world.
Conversely I do little for those in the US. I have sympathy for the plight of the poor in the US.
But half the world is worse off than the bottom 5% of the US.
If you wish to direct your charity at the poor in the US – you should be free to do so.
But why are you free to use government to make charitable choices that are quite different from mine ?
If I had the political power to do so – would it be OK with you if I redirected all government charity within the US to children in poverty throughout the world ?
Government can not morally engage in charity.
“ You keep saying “asylum seeker” – as if these really are people who might qualify for asylum.
They are not. When 99.999% do not meet the qualifications for asylum – then this is just about trying to game the system.”
That is not actually true, bu also irrelevant to the argument that the law still requires the government to determine whether claims of asylum are valid or not. Some may game the system, but they still have to go thru the system regardless. As long as they are in the county they all have a right to due process under the law. Whether they got here illegally or not. The constitution does not discern whether a person be a foreign national or an asylum seeker for some of the rights the constitution guarantees ANYONE within the borders of this country.
“ Sympathy compassion charity are private choices.
You are not free to use government to steal my money to engage in charity on my behalf.
That is immoral.”
They can also be choices made by government. Nothing says they can’t be. Government doesn’t not steal your money. Once the money you paid in taxes goes to the government it is no longer your money. Government can choose to engage in charity if it chooses when it is within the bounds of the law. Government providing shelter and food during disasters not charity? How about bailouts o businesses affected by economic disasters? They could be considered charity as well.
“ Why is it that you or anyone else is entitled to make my charitable choices for me ?”
It is not me or anyone else, it’s government doing it and because it has the ability to act or provide that charity with a much higher impact than an individual can, especially when it involves large numbers of affected individuals or even towns or cities.
You may not like the choices they make on who or what they will offer charity, neither do I when it comes to other choices they make. But you and I still have the ability to make a personal choice regardless of what the government chooses. The silly notion that the government is “stealing” from you is just that silly. There IS a solution to stop the government from “stealing” from you. You can choose not to work. Live off the land like homesteaders in Alaska who are totally dependent on their selves. Many homesteaders there are living the libertarian dream. I’m just saying there IS an option.
“ If I had the political power to do so – would it be OK with you if I redirected all government charity within the US to children in poverty throughout the world ?”
I would be ok with that. We already do in fact. It’s may not be a major endeavor, but it is still being done.
“That is not actually true, bu also irrelevant to the argument that the law still requires the government to determine whether claims of asylum are valid or not.”
Nope. if you cross illegally. you get a choice between immediate voluntary deportation and no criminal record, and detention until a criminal hearing on illegal border crossing followed by either deportation or incarceration and deportation.
That is the law. Biden is not following the law.
“Some may game the system, but they still have to go thru the system regardless.”
If they enter at a port of entry and present themselves for asylum.
“As long as they are in the county they all have a right to due process under the law.”
Correct, but there is no right to asylum. There is no right to cross the border at all, much less illegally.
I would further note that due process is mostly a civil right related to criminal charges.
“Whether they got here illegally or not.”
If they crossed illegally – they have a constitutional right to due process for the charge of illegally crossing.
That is it.
“The constitution does not discern whether a person be a foreign national or an asylum seeker for some of the rights the constitution guarantees ANYONE within the borders of this country.”
This is entirely incorrect.
There is no right to asylum. PERIOD.
There is not right to enter the country. PERIOD.
There is no obligation to due process for anything that is not a right.
Crossing illegally is a crime. Those charged are given due process with respect to THAT charge.
Separately all rights of citizens are NOT rights of immigrants.
As a trivial example, even legal immigrants can not vote.
Generally anyone inside this country is entitled to criminal due process.
That is due process for the crime of entering illegally or for crimes committed while here.
“They can also be choices made by government.”
Nope
“Nothing says they can’t be.”
False.
The social contract does not include Charity.
The declaration of indepenence establishes the purpose of government as securing our rights.
It also establishes that when govenrment is destructive of those rights we are free to abolish it – by force if necescary.
The constitution enumerates the letgitimate powers of government – charity is not one of those.
The first amendment provides for the free excercise of religion and the establishment clause bars government from entanglement in the domain of religion – charity.
There is positive and negative morality.
Positive morality is our moral duties – things we are obligated to do.
Most of us grasp by the time we are teens that positive morality is aspirational, and not realistic.
Even mother theresa could not live up to the demands of positive morality.
Positive morality is an infinite and unmeetable duty.
Charity is positive morality,
It is both unconstitutional, immoral and impossible to involve government in positive morality – imposing positive morality by force – and government is force, is inherently immoral. Further positive morality is an infinite and insaitiable demand that can not be imposed on government without causing government to fail.
Every teenage may not have grasped the intellectual arguments against positive morality in government.
But every one of us ultimately realizes it is not possible to meet our positive moral duties.
Negative morality is the domain of government – you may NOT use FORCE to impose your will.
You may not kill,
You may not steal.
Those are the obvious domain of government.
“Government doesn’t not steal your money.”
That is a ludicrously stupid statement.
In your fantasy world what precludes government from taking everything you own and giving nothing in return ?
OBVIOUSLY government may not do that.
The same constitutional, practical and moral constraints that preclude government from taking all of your wealth
are what constraints it for taking ANY of your wealth – except for a legitimate government purpose.
Those are specified by the constitution.
“Once the money you paid in taxes goes to the government it is no longer your money.”
Correct, when a theif takes my money – it is no longer my money either.
“Government can choose to engage in charity if it chooses when it is within the bounds of the law.”
Charity is not within the enuerated constitutional powers of govenrment.
It is not within the legitimate purposes of government as specified in the declaration of independence.
Note that the declaration of Independence specifically says that we may abolish – by force if necescary govenrment that exceeds its justified purpose – the protection of rights from those who would use force.
Charity is not found anywhere in the social contract.
Charity is a positive moral duty and has no moral or otherwise justified place in government.
“Government providing shelter and food during disasters not charity?”
Not the domain of govenrment.
“How about bailouts o businesses affected by economic disasters?”
Not the domain of government.
“They could be considered charity as well.”
It could, regardless it is wrong.
It is also immoral. Further if widely practiced it will fail badly.
Government bailouts – of the homeless, of those with student loans, of businesses, are all huge moral hazards.
It is irrelvant what you are OK with.
You can not morally give your impramatur to theft. Not even for a good purpose.
The purpose of DeSantis’s actions – and that of Abbot MOSTLY is not to solve the problem – atleast not directly.
It is to bring to the rest of the country a small taste of the direct consequences on TX and FL border states – almost all Red of the federal government refusing to follow the law.
Myriads of democratic politicians are quietly or not so quietly distancing themselves from Biden – and other democrats on immigration.
That is the objective.
As to the legitimacy of DeSantis or Abbott or Duecy’s actions – that is up to the people of those states.
Not me, not the federal government
“ The purpose of DeSantis’s actions – and that of Abbot MOSTLY is not to solve the problem – atleast not directly.
It is to bring to the rest of the country a small taste of the direct consequences on TX and FL border states – almost all Red of the federal government refusing to follow the law.”
The federal government IS following the law. The problem is those red states don’t like how the law is written and as you say they are not doing anything to change it, at least in a way that would pass constitutional challenges.
“ Myriads of democratic politicians are quietly or not so quietly distancing themselves from Biden – and other democrats on immigration.”
Who is? No examples of these “myriads of democratic politicians “?
“ As to the legitimacy of DeSantis or Abbott or Duecy’s actions – that is up to the people of those states.
Not me, not the federal government”
Well at least one aspect is up to the federal government which is the fact that the migrants he sent to Martha’s Vineyard were deliberately mislead so they would “volunteer” to go. This was directed by Desantis as he claimed. He’s now backtracking on his claims of responsibility for coordinating and funding the stunt which it now seems violated not only Florida law, but federal law as well.
“The federal government IS following the law.”
Nope, addressed repeatedly.
The Biden admin is NOT following US immigration law.
Current immigration law permits the immediate voluntary deportation of those not crossing at a port of entry, or the short term detention followed by criminal prosecution of those who do not voluntarily return.
The hearing those who cross outside a port of entry is for the crime of crossing illegally, and the outcome is conviction and immediate deportation, or conviction and jail followed by deportation.
There is no provision to claim asylum except at a port of entry. And even there there is a negligable chance of getting it.
When the actual law is enforced most choose voluntary deportation. A conviction for illegal entry means that on a subsequent attempt they can either be immediately jailed or immediately deported without a hearing.
And that they lose any ability to legally immigrate
That is the actual law.
The constitution bars border states from only one action – deporting illegal aliens. That is the exclusive domain of the federal government. There is no actual federal law regarding what else states can do.
Cities across the country – mostly left wing nut cities have been transporting homeless people elsewhere for decades. That has survived legal challenges. States have even more power to do so than cities.
If you really wish a legal battle over this go for it.
You will lose. Embarrassingly.
If DeSantis violated any laws. Then Martha’s Vineyard did the same or worse when they used the National Guard to remove these people to an abandoned military base.
Did they get informed consent ?
Were they Venezeulan’s free to stay if they wished ?
And Biden’s DHS would be violating the same laws as it transports illegal aliens in the dead of night accress the country – well not to Blue places like Martha’s Vineyard.
God forbid the hoi poloi should have to rub elbows with brown people.
Bigotry writ large for labor arbitrage, democratic gerrymandering, redistributive change, etc. with not plausible, but probable diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism) motives.
That said, emigration reform to mitigate progress and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout. Build a wall with certified way stations to expose democracy aborted in darkness, demos-cracy aborted at the twilight fringe, gun running (e.g. terrorists, Obama et al), and women and girls rape… rape-raped and the “burden” of evidence aborted then sequestered in order to sustain social progress.
Outraged at having been sent 50 illegal immigrants from Florida by Ron DeSantis, Martha’s Vineyard has taken ultimate revenge on the governor by shipping 50 Karens to Florida.
“Perhaps now DeSantis will think twice before he sullies our pristine white island with brown migrant people,” said Martha’s Vineyard HOA President Karen VonSchnitzel. “Once the charter flight filled with our neighborhood’s most insufferable Karens touches down in Tallahassee, he will rue the day he made us look like heartless racists in front of the entire country. HAHAHAHAHA!”
https://babylonbee.com/news/marthas-vineyard-takes-revenge-on-desantis-by-shipping-him-50-karens
People of Brown (i.e. color bloc under diversity [dogma]) or Brown-Migrants (i.e. 1/2 compromise).
This is how much Biden and the Dems care about the security of American families.
—–
Rep. Nehls says Homeland Security confirmed Venezuela ‘sends violent criminals’ to U.S.
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/rep-nehls-says-homeland-security-confirmed-venezuela-sends-violent-criminals-us?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
I think it is quite telling exactly how these rich, liberal elites think of us brown people.
Oh, they are just fine with us if we are mowing their lawns, cleaning their mega-mansions.
48 illegal aliens show up and they lose their collective minds. What? Take any of them in to one of their mulit-room mansions? Put up a General Purpose tent on their how many acre lawns? Oh, no! Declare a emergency, call in the NG and get them off our island pronto!
I imagine if I showed up as a tourist, they would try to get me on a bus and shipped out to a military base.
Or hand me a leaf blower and tell me to get to get back to work.
Quite telling indeed.
Too bad that is not what actually happened.
https://www.mvtimes.com/2022/09/19/marthas-vineyard-remains-national-spotlight/
None of the migrants was forced to leave. Do you have some documentation showing they were forced to leave MV? Where are you getting this fake news?
I like the reference by this link to the “Vineyard hypocrites” .
I can see why your username is Anonymous. I would want to remain anonymous as well. Take the time and do some research instead of being lazy by posting the first link from a google search. Always can tell who received their participation trophies.
Is it showing my laziness or that of the poster who continues to believe they were forced off the island?
Where have you found evidence to the contrary?
So if there is a catastrophic problem in the middle east or Africa and they migrate to the US, can the government send them to the red states only? If the republican party sees nothing wrong what’s going on now, then they should not have a problem with a future migration to red states. Democrat states are helping those who where dropped off there, can the same be said for the red states in a future migration?
If you want migrants entering the country illegally then take them to you state. If not Florida will try and get as many to you as possible.
Your hypocrisy is on display, as is your ignorance.
Good thing Florida is not a border state with Mexico or Canada. They would have a hard time sending migrants not in Florida from another state to another state. That would be illegal according to Florida law.
Florida shares a water boarder with Cuba & the Bahamas, and the flow of People (Refuges, Asylum Seekers, Illegals, Mules, etc. Whatever proclivity you like to call them) keep on coming as it has for decades. ‘The Underground Railroad’ of Immigrants is in full operation.
The U.S. Boarder Patrol knows it, The U.S. Coast Guard knows it, the U.S. Navy know it, U.S. Immigration knows it … D.C. knows it.
Florida says: NOT IN MY BACKYARD! – Enough is Enough [.]
You’re proposing more illegal immigration so no, you hypocrite.
I don’t care what happens anywhere on the planet. Come here legally, or get shipped back out. The US is not a refugee camp.
Even the liberal-hypocritical media is shocked at the level of hypocrisy exhibited by the Democrats for their inhumane treatment of the illegal aliens:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/behind-closed-doors-marthas-vineyard-liberals-reveal-their-hypocrisy-opinion/ar-AA11ZDYv
“Hillary Clinton declaring that it constitutes “literally human trafficking.””
Well, if anyone would know about human trafficking, it would be the bag Hillary.
The bottom line is that Biden flew the ILLEGALS to Florida and then DeSantis flew them to a sanctuary city and state. Florida is not a border state, the ILLEGALS didn’t walk from Texas to Florida, Biden flew them there. All the governor did was take the ILLEGALS out of a non-sanctuary state and he sent them to a sanctuary state. He sent them from a state whose reps argue for a closed border to a state whose reps argue for an open border.
Lying fools like “Anonymous” are critical of the governor and have no issue with the president. How is that objectively possible?
State law vs. Federal law. Objectively possible.
Also, DeSantis didn’t fly anyone that Biden sent to him to MA. He flew individuals permitted to stay in TX pending the resolution of their outstanding asylum matters to MA.
Maybe this goes without being said, but these are people. So, “ILLEGAL” A in Florida is a different human than “ASLYUM APPLICANT A” in Texas.
“ The bottom line is that Biden flew the ILLEGALS to Florida and then DeSantis flew them to a sanctuary city and state. Florida is not a border state, the ILLEGALS didn’t walk from Texas to Florida, Biden flew them there.”
No, Biden didn’t do that. DeSantis chartered a plane to fly MIGRANTS, asylum seekers FROM Texas to Massachusetts using Florida taxpayer dollars specifically earmarked for migrants FROM Florida.
DeSantis violated Florida law to finance a cheap political stunt. Furthermore DHS literally lied to them in order for them to “consent” to this “free” trip using money illegally from Florida taxpayers. That’s a problem for DeSantis. Because he intends to exhaust the $12 million he’s illegally using from a program that doesn’t allow him to spend it to send out of state migrants to another state.
Svelaz, it has come out just this morning that Biden has flown over 400,000 ILLEGALS out of Texas in the last year…any comment?
How can you say that Biden did not fly the ILLEGALS to FLorida? How can we debate if you won’t acknowledge that 2 plus 2 is 4? We have seen the flights landing in Westchester County, NY at 2:00AM, you know it is true and yet you damn lie on here. Biden has been flying ILLEGALS all over the country AND YOU KNOW IT. The ILLEGALS didn’t walk to FL did they? What a piece of work you are.
BTW, it was shown over the weekend that Tic Toc has offered people $400 to put out anti-republican items (I don’t even know what Tic Toc things are called) and I am guessing that fools like you and Anonymous may very well be getting paid for you asinine comments. It is the only thing that makes any sense.
Hullbobby,
“ Svelaz, it has come out just this morning that Biden has flown over 400,000 ILLEGALS out of Texas in the last year…any comment?”
They were not illegals. Asylum seekers are granted temporary stay pending their hearings. By LAW Biden is authorized to send them to other states where they can wait for their hearing. It’s a legal process spelled out by law.
DeSantis didn’t have the authority to spend Florida taxpayer money to send migrants (asylum seekers). From Texas to Massachusetts without proper documents and according to federal immigration law.
“ How can you say that Biden did not fly the ILLEGALS to FLorida?”
Because they were not in Florida when they were flown FROM Texas to Massachusetts. Duh.
Svelbot, learn to read, the Florida legislature earmarked 12 million dollars to relocate ILLEGALS to other states, i.e. sanctuary states. It was voted on by the legislature and Democrats even voted for it.
Nice try, but just another swing and a miss!
You’re not a “migrant” if you are here illegally. You are an Illegal Alien, IOW a criminal.
Can you prove that any town on Martha’s Vineyard is a sanctuary city? Or, that MA is codified as a sanctuary state? Please provide a cite.
Professor Turley did not care to do the basic research to look into this.
Can you prove Florida is? Or Texas??
Why is that relevant? That has nothing to do with sending migrants to MA who aren’t even in your state to another state based on the false premise that the destination is a sanctuary city/state.
While Venezuelan immigrants leave for the US, Russians move in.
Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro is working out details with Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov who has indicated the possibility that Moscow could open new military facilities in Cuba and Venezuela. “I don’t want to confirm anything, I won’t rule anything out either,” he stated, stressing that such possibilities depended on Washington’s response to Russia’s request for security guarantees among which were that NATO should cease to expand.
If we send them all home, we wouldn’t have these problems, that the Joe Biden caused by opening the border and telling them they were welcome to come here. Share the wealth is the Democrats motto, yet they hate doing it themselves. Share the burden YOU caused Democrats. YOU look ugly sending these “migrants” to what YOU would call a concentration camp if Trump sent them there.
None of the immigrants walked to Florida from Mexico. President Biden’s DHS sent them there.
If the government isn’t going to enforce the border, and the governors are restricted from closing the border themselves, all immigrants should be offered the sanctuary city of their choice or a return trip to their home country. Border towns like Yuma, Az cannot handle the influx of hundreds of thousands.
Liberal enclaves across the country stood up to express support for immigration with their votes for sanctuary city status. It’s far time we give them what they voted for.
“The governors’ critics are correct: These trips are politically motivated.”
This is distusting. Using people, actual humabn beings for a political stunt. Words have meaning professor. Just like trumps words had meaning when on January 6 he said to be angry and go down to the capitol building and he would be right there with them to demand congress and mike pense do the right thing.
So democratic officials have been loud and asked for an investigation if it is illegal to treat human beings this way and you just shrug it off as a politial stunt. Nothing to look at hear, move along.
The repo party has really dug to new lows in how they treat people. Disgusting.
Like these words?
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” – Presidend Trump
There is nothing wrong with anything he said here.
There is nothing wrong with giving sanctuary states what they want. Unless, you are just saying that for political motivation.
There is nothing “ disgusting” about what the governors of Arizona, Texas and Florida are doing. None of these states asked for the flood of illegal immigrants Biden has delivered to them. The numbers are a huge burden, stretching resources in communities that by and large cannot afford it. Cities like D.C., New York, Chicago and Edgartown have declared themselves sanctuary cities, said they welcome illegal immigrants and applauded Biden’s catch and release policy. The governors have given a small portion of the massive numbers that have arrived in their states the opportunity to travel to these places, who claim in theory that they are happy to take on the burden. When confronted with the reality of what it actually means to handle just a few of these people, they cry foul and call for the national guard or federal support. The ruthless efficiency with which the affluent white progressives of Martha’s Vinyard mobilised the military to haul away every single one of the 50 Venezuelans who arrived there was truly breathtaking. And this with a large budget surplus and room vacancies many multiples of the numbers involved.
The only thing “disgusting” here is the hypocrisy of the left.
I’m with the sanctuary state champions. They have a right to virtue signal without being exposed as hypocrites.
What the Left says: “Sanctuary, diversity, hate has no place here.”
Their action: “It’s outrageous.”
In any battle between what an individual says and what he does, take seriously his action.
They seem to forget biden’s midnight flights of migrants. But I am sure that is different in their “minds”.
Biden is the governor of which state?
Oh right, he is the President.
Federal law supersedes state immigration policy. See Arizona v. United States (SCOTUS, 2012): “The state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
What law is being undermined? The right to free movement?
Also, I take it then you want to see all the sates that allow pot to be smoked have their governors strung up, correct? Please start with Hochul.
I didn’t realize immigration law covered the legalization of marijuana? What?
FL interfered with the asylum process, which is governed by federal immigration law. They literally falsified the migrants addresses, so that they would need to report to as far-flung places as Washington state.
But my response was to the false equivalence of the above poster comparing DeSantis to Biden.
There is also, of course, the fraud aspect that clearly differentiates this apples/oranges situation. But, yes, please help me understand your weed argument a bit better.
You quoted
“The state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
I bring up the pot thing because you pretend to care so much about federal law.
“The use, sale, and possession of cannabis over 0.3% THC in the United States, despite laws in many states permitting it under various circumstances, is illegal under federal law.”
So you are equally outraged by this correct? Line these governeors up!
Back to immigrtion. Isn’t there a federal law about entering the country illigally? So again, where is your outrage over gorvernors and mayors going agianst fed law when they proclaim sanctuary citiy?
You’re just a hypocrite.
You appear to care deeply for these aliens. Can we safely presume you have invited many of these invaders to live with you?
Yeah, Idiot Joe just does it in the middle of the night. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Read the post. Turely addressed this bit of idiocy. ” These migrants are allowed to engage in interstate travel and other states can facilitate such travel.”
If you champion an open border policy and unlimited, entry of unvetted, illegal immigrants into the US then it seems you should be happy when they arrive in your town however they got there.
Just sayin…
Prof. Turley,
Please see the brochure provided to the migrants below. If they accepted transport under the expectation of receiving the benefits in that brochure, and then found out that the brochure was a complete lie, do you actually think that is informed consent?
https://popular.info/p/the-smoking-gun-in-marthas-vineyard
Anonymous (the “compassionate” one), why have you not come out to support Governor DeSantis for giving the illegal aliens the vacation of a lifetime in Martha’s Vineyard (that was cut short only by the mega-millionaire residents of Martha’s Vineyard)?
Not once did you urge the residents of Martha’s Vineyard to give the illegal aliens free housing, free food, free medical care, free education, and free transportation.
This is shocking. It’s almost as though you are celebrating the illegal aliens being kicked out of Martha’s Vineyard and treated like rubbish by Martha’s Vineyard’s mega-millionaires. And now you want to imprison Governor DeSantis for giving Martha’s Vineyard’s residents the blessed gift of illegal aliens.
If I did not know you better, I’d say by your own words that you were an elitist, racist, xenophopic, hateful, and hypocritical scoundrel, instead of the warm, loving, compassionate, and humanitarian person that I know you to be. (At least, that’s what you always tell everyone here.)
Did DeSantis give them $5,000 each to stay in a hotel and buy food? I think not. He gave them a free ride to an island and all they had was the clothes on their back.
A disgusting political ploy to treat people this way. And if you don’t see it? You should also look in the mirror and see if there is any humanity in your soul.
Why would he have to give them $5,000? Just because you break the law and cross a border to another country, you deserve $5,000? Why not $10,000? Did the people who want them (Martha’s Vineyard) give them that? Why are you such a hypocrite? It’s disgusting that you think hard working people need to have their property stollen and given to others.
DeSantis actually spent over $12,000 per person to fly them to MA for his political stunt…..
What a phenomenal usage of tax dollars.
How much did idiot Joe spend for midnight drops? You are a hypocrite.
Biden should give them a loan of $10,000 and then cancel it
Baby trump, we don’t see you taking in these illegal immigrants. Why not? You are the hypocrite next door that is always blowing the leaves on someone else’s property.
You know so much about me. How do you know what I do or don’t do?
The people at Marthas vineyard gave them cash, a cell phone, food, clothing. DeSantis gave them false hope and a false promise.
.”You know so much about me. How do you know what I do or don’t do?”
You have a big mouth and little understanding of where you live. You have told us all we need to know, and what you have told us about yourself is not pretty.
DeSantis provided the illegals transportation to the Vineyard to pick up ” cash, a cell phone, food, clothing”.
Biden provided a false promise at the expense of the American taxpayer and America’s immigration laws.
And don’t forget M.V. gave them all a one way ticket to get the hell off our island.
S. Meyer says, “ DeSantis provided the illegals transportation to the Vineyard to pick up ” cash, a cell phone, food, clothing”.
He paid using Florida taxpayer money specifically for transporting migrants FROM Florida. Not FROM Texas.
They were enticed to take the flight under false pretenses which is fraud. They were led to believe they would have jobs and expedited processing to convince them to go on that flight. Because they went under false pretenses they will be eligible for U.S. visas which ironically will enable them to travel to Florida and remain there legally.
Enticing them under false pretenses to go somewhere else under false pretenses is part human trafficking law. Thanks to DeSantis they will now be eligible to go anywhere they want and have a valid visa.
“ According to an analysis of federal immigration law by the U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services: “Traffickers and abusers often use a lack of immigration status to exploit and control victims.” They “may lure individuals with false promises of employment and a better life.”
Ricci said she believes that’s exactly what DeSantis has done. If law enforcement agrees, it could make migrants eligible for a special kind of visa that protects victims of human trafficking. “It would be so ironic for these families to ultimately legalize and become citizens as a result of his actions.”
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/18/1123644692/desantis-migrants-texas-massachusetts-marthas-vineyard-legal-questions
The law applies to traffickers and abusers. DeSantis can be labeled an abuser under the law because being lied to and taken somewhere else as a result of those lies qualifies them for a special visa.
“They were enticed to take the flight under false pretenses which is fraud. They were led to believe they would have jobs and expedited processing to convince them to go on that flight.”
Svelaz makes things up or copies things made for the stupid. He has proven himself to be a moron who won’t purchase a dictionary to learn the meaning of words he uses.
“Enticing them under false pretenses to go somewhere else under false pretenses is part human trafficking law. Thanks to DeSantis they will now be eligible to go anywhere they want and have a valid visa.”
Change Biden for DeSantis, and you might be correct. Biden has been doing everything you say DeSantis did, except Biden is shipping hundreds of thousands at night to cities all over America. Some of those flights contain criminals emptied from jails in foreign nations.
“Traffickers and abusers often use a lack of immigration status to exploit and control victims.”
That is a Biden creation. Today we see how some leftists openly refer to illegals as trash. The left is using them for the political needs of a failed ideology.
S. Meyer says,
“ Change Biden for DeSantis, and you might be correct. Biden has been doing everything you say DeSantis did, except Biden is shipping hundreds of thousands at night to cities all over America. Some of those flights contain criminals emptied from jails in foreign nations.”
S. Meyer is a certified idiot. Biden is the president who is the one with authority over immigration law. DeSantis is not. Biden is LEGALLY sending LEGAL asylum applicants to cities where they can LEGALLY await their hearings. DeSantis ILLEGALLY used money SPECIFICALLY for relocating “unauthorized aliens” FROM Florida not Texas. These migrants are NOT “unauthorized aliens” either. They are political refugees LEGALLY in the country awaiting their asylum hearings.
DeSantis interfered with a LEGAL federal process to score political points with his base. DeSantis is already looking at spending more Florida taxpayer money to deal with the lawsuits that are coming.
“ Traffickers and abusers often use a lack of immigration status to exploit and control victims.”
That is a Biden creation. Today we see how some leftists openly refer to illegals as trash. The left is using them for the political needs of a failed ideology.”
Nope. You’re clearly confusing what the you and the right are doing. Clearly you’re living up to the ATS label. Thanks for making that even more obvious S. Meyer.
“Biden is the president who is the one with authority over immigration law. DeSantis is not.”
Svelaz, I don’t have to say it because John has proved you are a dummy all day. DeSantis is not changing federal law. He is using his powers as governor. If you wish to argue differently, provide the facts. That is something that you lack among your stupid mistakes.
” Biden is LEGALLY sending LEGAL asylum applicants to cities where they can LEGALLY await their hearings.”
You can say all the stupid things you wish, but you need evidence to prove your case. You don’t know what evidence or proof is because you never bought that dictionary.
“DeSantis ILLEGALLY used money SPECIFICALLY for relocating “unauthorized aliens” FROM Florida not Texas. These migrants are NOT “unauthorized aliens” either. They are political refugees LEGALLY in the country awaiting their asylum hearings.”
You think you are intelligent, but you are not. In fact, I think you are the least intelligent person to post on this blog.
“DeSantis interfered with a LEGAL federal process to score political points with his base. DeSantis is already looking at spending more Florida taxpayer money to deal with the lawsuits that are coming.”
You don’t know the law. Biden is skirting the law, likely beyond hin a parrot isn’t so stupid.
Have the megamillionaires living in Martha’s Vineyard even offered the illegal aliens free housing, free food, free medical care, free education, and free transportation? No, they shipped them out as soon as possible and treated them like yesterday’s rubbish. Did you show any disdain for the megamillionaires’ NIMBY routine? No, you LOVED what they did. If you truly want to see a lying, repulsive, racist, xenophobic, hateful and hypocritical person, you should be the one to look into the mirror for your “humanity.” But you won’t find a soul. Mindless, useful idiots don’t have one.
No one shipped them out. Where are you getting your information? They were given a choice… to stay on the Island or to travel to Joint Base Cape Cod.
https://www.mvtimes.com/2022/09/19/marthas-vineyard-remains-national-spotlight/
“They were given a choice”, so say the “Vineyard hypocrites” and ATS.
He gave them a free ride to an island and all they had was the clothes on their back. A disgusting political ploy to treat people this way. And if you don’t see it? You should also look in the mirror and see if there is any humanity in your soul.
Your bleeding heart is starving your brain. You act as though the journey for these migrants began on the streets of Florida. The Biden administration invited them to leave their home country on the condition that if they survive the journey, the United States taxpayers would take care of them. So hundreds, if not thousands of miles later, after suffering harsh physical conditions and in many cases, being trafficked by the cartel’s coyotes, they finally make it into the United States. They are given free shelter, food and clothing. They are then given a free plane trip to Florida. They are then given another free plane trip to Martha’s Vineyard. They are then bussed to a military base on Cape Cod. And the only inhumane action you see is the 2nd of 2 free plane trips to an island that declares itself to be a sanctuary for these migrants.
Was it a political move by DeSantis? Absolutely. But only in the sense that he forced the residents of Martha’s Vineyard, and Democrats in general, to prove to the world they would walk the walk. And true to form, they proved themselves to be the hypocrites, that anyone paying attention, already knew them to be. They have humanity in their crosshairs, not their soul. And you’re just gullible enough to believe them to be saints.
Do as I say, not as I do. These idiots are laughable.