Quote:Monday on FNC’s “Fox & Friends,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) hit President Joe Biden over his failure to act on fixing the crisis at the United States’ border with Mexico.

Kennedy said that Biden just doesn’t care” about the surge of immigrants that are overwhelming the migrant facilities at the border. He warned of how “dangerous” and “expensive” the border crisis is for the United States.

“Sometimes, when people act like they don’t care, it’s not an act. I think President Biden just doesn’t care,” Kennedy outlined. “I think he plans on admitting between 2 and 3 million illegal immigrants into our country this year. We had hints of that in his campaign.”

“This is dangerous,” he added. “The Border Patrol told me that at least people from 55 countries have already come in. People from all over the world are getting to Mexico and flooding in. Number two, it’s very expensive. Many of these folks will go on welfare, particularly if they can make it to a sanctuary city or a blue state. It puts downward pressure on wages, and it unreservedly undermines illegal immigration, which most Americans support. Now, in further evidence of what I just suggested, the President has put Vice President Harris in charge of trying to combat the illegal immigration. There’s some confusion. She says she doesn’t want it. The President says she’s got to take it. But no disrespect to the Vice President. I know her well, I respect her, but she believes in open borders. Making her the illegal immigration czar, as I said the other day, is like making El Chapo the drug czar.”

Link

Joe Biden* has been unfaithful to, and untruthful with the American people on this illegal alien invasion that he has created. Typical democrat.

The problem is that the Dems wanted this, but it got out of hand. They want to bring in illegals, throw them benefits, and give them amnesty. It's easier to import tens of millions of lifelong Democrat votes than it is to push pro-American policies that will get votes. The problem is, they opened the gates and didn't expect the flood.

I think the Democrats purposefully wanted this to happen so that people would finally see what a problem we have on the border.

I can see many mothers from all walks of life pushing for reform now.

Democrats see a steady stream of illegals as a steady supply of future democrat votes. They don't want to do anything that will stem that side.

I thought Trump's preoccupation with a wall was a tactical error. A wall makes sense along land borders in CA, AZ, and NM. But along the Rio Grande, there are just too many issues. I was actually hoping that the "Art of the Deal" would be trading the wall for a coherent, rational immigration policy. Regan had a deal with Tip O'Neill to put such a policy in place back in the 1980s, trading amnesty for illegals already here to get it. But Tip and the democrats reneged on their side of the bargain, and there has been bad blood on both sides ever since. The problem for republicans is how do you negotiate with someone that you fundamentally distrust.

(04-08-2021 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats see a steady stream of illegals as a steady supply of future democrat votes. They don't want to do anything that will stem that side.

I thought Trump's preoccupation with a wall was a tactical error. A wall makes sense along land borders in CA, AZ, and NM. But along the Rio Grande, there are just too many issues. I was actually hoping that the "Art of the Deal" would be trading the wall for a coherent, rational immigration policy. Regan had a deal with Tip O'Neill to put such a policy in place back in the 1980s, trading amnesty for illegals already here to get it. But Tip and the democrats reneged on their side of the bargain, and there has been bad blood on both sides ever since. The problem for republicans is how do you negotiate with someone that you fundamentally distrust.

My understanding was that the policy long ago was to enforce the border at the cities in order to force immigrants to risk crossing in the desert. This did two things.

1. It kept them out of sight
2. It made it less likely that they would try it or if they did, be successful doing it.


Trump's border wall, while popular with many, actually creates a different problem because it forces the immigrants to attempt entry back into the cities where they are more likely to be captured and thus, seek asylum.

(04-08-2021 10:50 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats see a steady stream of illegals as a steady supply of future democrat votes. They don't want to do anything that will stem that side.

I thought Trump's preoccupation with a wall was a tactical error. A wall makes sense along land borders in CA, AZ, and NM. But along the Rio Grande, there are just too many issues. I was actually hoping that the "Art of the Deal" would be trading the wall for a coherent, rational immigration policy. Regan had a deal with Tip O'Neill to put such a policy in place back in the 1980s, trading amnesty for illegals already here to get it. But Tip and the democrats reneged on their side of the bargain, and there has been bad blood on both sides ever since. The problem for republicans is how do you negotiate with someone that you fundamentally distrust.

My understanding was that the policy long ago was to enforce the border at the cities in order to force immigrants to risk crossing in the desert. This did two things.

1. It kept them out of sight
2. It made it less likely that they would try it or if they did, be successful doing it.


Trump's border wall, while popular with many, actually creates a different problem because it forces the immigrants to attempt entry back into the cities where they are more likely to be captured and thus, seek asylum.

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

(04-08-2021 11:29 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:50 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats see a steady stream of illegals as a steady supply of future democrat votes. They don't want to do anything that will stem that side.

I thought Trump's preoccupation with a wall was a tactical error. A wall makes sense along land borders in CA, AZ, and NM. But along the Rio Grande, there are just too many issues. I was actually hoping that the "Art of the Deal" would be trading the wall for a coherent, rational immigration policy. Regan had a deal with Tip O'Neill to put such a policy in place back in the 1980s, trading amnesty for illegals already here to get it. But Tip and the democrats reneged on their side of the bargain, and there has been bad blood on both sides ever since. The problem for republicans is how do you negotiate with someone that you fundamentally distrust.

My understanding was that the policy long ago was to enforce the border at the cities in order to force immigrants to risk crossing in the desert. This did two things.

1. It kept them out of sight
2. It made it less likely that they would try it or if they did, be successful doing it.


Trump's border wall, while popular with many, actually creates a different problem because it forces the immigrants to attempt entry back into the cities where they are more likely to be captured and thus, seek asylum.

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

Not wrong. I've actually seen the government documents.

The code name they gave the "operation" escapes me at the moment but it's well documented.

(04-08-2021 11:31 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:29 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:50 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats see a steady stream of illegals as a steady supply of future democrat votes. They don't want to do anything that will stem that side.

I thought Trump's preoccupation with a wall was a tactical error. A wall makes sense along land borders in CA, AZ, and NM. But along the Rio Grande, there are just too many issues. I was actually hoping that the "Art of the Deal" would be trading the wall for a coherent, rational immigration policy. Regan had a deal with Tip O'Neill to put such a policy in place back in the 1980s, trading amnesty for illegals already here to get it. But Tip and the democrats reneged on their side of the bargain, and there has been bad blood on both sides ever since. The problem for republicans is how do you negotiate with someone that you fundamentally distrust.

My understanding was that the policy long ago was to enforce the border at the cities in order to force immigrants to risk crossing in the desert. This did two things.

1. It kept them out of sight
2. It made it less likely that they would try it or if they did, be successful doing it.


Trump's border wall, while popular with many, actually creates a different problem because it forces the immigrants to attempt entry back into the cities where they are more likely to be captured and thus, seek asylum.

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

Not wrong. I've actually seen the government documents.

The code name they gave the "operation" escapes me at the moment but it's well documented.

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

(04-08-2021 11:33 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:31 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:29 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:50 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats see a steady stream of illegals as a steady supply of future democrat votes. They don't want to do anything that will stem that side.

I thought Trump's preoccupation with a wall was a tactical error. A wall makes sense along land borders in CA, AZ, and NM. But along the Rio Grande, there are just too many issues. I was actually hoping that the "Art of the Deal" would be trading the wall for a coherent, rational immigration policy. Regan had a deal with Tip O'Neill to put such a policy in place back in the 1980s, trading amnesty for illegals already here to get it. But Tip and the democrats reneged on their side of the bargain, and there has been bad blood on both sides ever since. The problem for republicans is how do you negotiate with someone that you fundamentally distrust.

My understanding was that the policy long ago was to enforce the border at the cities in order to force immigrants to risk crossing in the desert. This did two things.

1. It kept them out of sight
2. It made it less likely that they would try it or if they did, be successful doing it.


Trump's border wall, while popular with many, actually creates a different problem because it forces the immigrants to attempt entry back into the cities where they are more likely to be captured and thus, seek asylum.

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

Not wrong. I've actually seen the government documents.

The code name they gave the "operation" escapes me at the moment but it's well documented.

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

"No More Deaths depicts the border as a gauntlet which often condemns would-be crossers to grim and uncertain fates. It said the policy was rooted in a 1994 Clinton-era Border Patrol strategy called “Prevention Through Deterrence” which sealed off urban entry points and funneled people to wilderness routes risking injury, dehydration, heat stroke, exhaustion and hypothermia."


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...nts-mexico