WH Floated Dumping Migrants In Democratic Strongholds


More fairy tales from the open borders advocate. He has no credibility because he won’t compromise on any aspect of the immigration issue. Criminals and terrorists are welcome so far as he’s concerned. Criminals and terrorists contribute to the economy his fictitious libertarian model.

Unfortunately the libertarian model breaks down when you give illegals welfare benefits. Those immigrants who came here legally are not happy with the illegals because they will drain their communities dry. You can not support a crush of people who can’t speak the language, must live off the state and come here waving the flags of their home countries. Immigration must be orderly and selective.

I support immigration reform, not open borders. AS, Nancy Pelosi and AOC are all in complete agreement.


And this on the phony 11-12 million Illegals numbers!


If your economists can boost the GDP a fraction of a point they are happy as clams. They don’t give a tinker’s damn about public health, public safety, national security or wage suppression.

Your arguments that this is why we need to fix our immigration are true but meaningless. They are meaningless because will never pass in the Congress until the border is controlled. We’ve been fooled too many times in the past.

Even if your argument that illegals commit less crime were true (which it isn’t) letting in one murderer is one more than would have occurred if we had stopped him from coming in.


Neither did Milton Friedman.

“Wage suppression” is an argument with no legs OD. Pretty sure you know that.

It’s on the same level as arguments for the minimum wage. Long term, they prove faulty.

Other way around OD, if the Right doesn’t take lead on immigration reform, the outrage empowers the Left, and we get left-centric solutions.

Extremes like closing down ICE, or another amnesty, or even just more lackadaisical enforcement.

And no real resolution to the problem.

Ergo, “Enforcement first” actually means more of the same. Because the Left will be there to pounce on what we didn’t address.

If you want Canada’s system, that’d at least be a step in the right direction.


I never advocated for open borders.

I want a guest worker program.


Oh yea? That’s not what you wrote when I spent the better part of week debating you on this issue. You put yourself in a left-wing box while you spouted that Barry Goldwater would have supported open borders. If you want to get out of the box, you can start thinking about national security and families who have lost loved ones to illegal alien criminals who have gotten help from sanctuary cites who won’t turn alien criminals over to ICE but let them lose instead.

It’s not fair to burden pubic school districts with large numbers of illegal alien children who can’t speak English and require special education. Where are the rights for native born children who deserve an opportunity to get a decent education? There are only some much money and resources.

The illegal caravans are thumbing their noses at us now because they know they have a blank check to do whatever they want when they cross the U.S. border. I don’t want to bar everyone from immigragrating here, but we can’t handle everyone all at once, and some who are coming here to sell drugs, commit crimes or commit acts terror have no right to come here at all.


Yeah it was. Quote anything I said Send.

Nope, I said the opposite:

Barry Goldwater wanted to bring back Bracero. That was his alternative to Amnesty.
I think it’s high time we gave it a try.


It is interesting that you still have not addressed the issues of national security, illegal drugs smuggled over the border and crime. You always ignore those issues when I cite them. It’s the way politicians avoid addressing series issues that don’t have easy answers. Cory Booker does this repeatedly.


Nope again:

I’ve said things like this numerous times.


My viewpoint in a nutshell. He mentions the relevant history in just 3 minutes.


V"Nope again"

That 'S

The usual inadequate response that I have come to expect from you. I spend writing a response, you write two words about national security and crime. Pathetic response!

As for your little ivory tower, libertarian friend’s video, he’s living in a dream world.

Welfare reform? The last time that was done was over 20 years ago during the Clinton administration. It’s not going happen with this bunch of socialist Democrats in control.

Get a majority of votes from the illegal aliens? How is that going to happen when the Democrats come to them and say, “We’ll give you open borders, a guaranteed income, free health care and free housing.” All the Republicans have is, “We’ll give you a shot a job and opportunities.

When they have had a chance to vote, these people have supported Hugo Chavis and Daniel Ortega. Then their lives went to hell, and they decide to come to the U.S. When they get here there is no reason think that they aren’t going to support the American versions of Chavis and Ortega – AOC, Pelosi, Omar and the rest of the socialist Democrats.


You claimed I said things I didn’t. That’s all that matters here.

It’s adequate, as it proves your accusations were wrong. If you’re being honest with me, you should admit that, here and now.

1996, and what Bush 41 through EO in 2003.

Both of these things happened while border-talk stalled.

Thus, I don’t see why Norquist, who lives in the D.C. scene, would buy into the idea it can’t happen.

He knows better than anyone what could be pushed through the Washington machinery if Republicans were serious.

Ask people who immigrated from Cuba. Or more recently, Venezuela.

Shockingly, people can understand that socialism comes with a cost.

They understand it better than most Americans at this point.


So, Slim agrees that health and potential terrorist screening is Ok as part of LEGAL immigration screening. What an utterly meaningless obfuscating statement.

ILLEGAL immigration does not screen for these. A secure border and Wall does. No, it’s not 100% but it is damn well more that 0%.


A better legal program does. That’s the missing element.

The wall doesn’t control drugs or guns; so why would it control people?

There’s a lack of proof-in-action for your statement OD, and I think you know about those faults.

We had an immigration program that worked and illegal immigration fell to just a few 1,000 a year; then the Democrats and the Unions re-wrote our immigration laws, resulting in illegal immigration exploding to over a million a year again.

The lesson is clear; it’s the quality of the system that determines the outcome. You don’t see countries with good immigration systems have this problem.


Walls don’t work but all of your leftist heroes live behind them, the Left don’t have an ounce of intellectual integrity amongst the whole lot.


Most drugs and gun traffic comes/goes through our legal ports of entry.

The biggest growth in migrant activity has been people surrendering themselves to border officers, asking for asylum.

Walls don’t prevent either of these things.

As you like to say RET; context. People imagine walls doing more than they actually do, because they don’t know how to put them in context.


Ah yes, another Liberal fantasy; here is how it goes.

ALL illegal weapons and drug transporters are diligent in registering their activity in triplicate with various government agencies so the United States can have accurate and reliable statistics to offer as an argument against border security; as a result of these conscientious drug and gun dealers we (your friends in the deep state) can assure all Americans that a wall is simply not needed in the interest of National Security.

We also have rock solid numbers on how many illegal immigrants are in the United States and we (your friends in the deep state) can assure you with equal certainty that there is nothing to be concerned with and so a wall is not needed for this concern either.

Pay no attention to your surroundings if these statements of absolutely unquestionable statistics seem to contradict what you see all around you.

We are the government and as such we never speak with political motives and we are your all knowing source of knowledge & understanding.

I love that you guys genuinely don’t seem to know how ridiculous you sound when you portend to know things that you can’t possibly know.


It’s more like this is where the CBP reports they interdict the most cocaine they find, and interviews with drug dealers confirm that this is where the cartels channel their goods most often.

Regardless of the number of drug dogs and technology and intelligence, the potential of smuggling the drugs in through a port of entry is far greater. Your ability to be captured coming across between a port of entry is much greater,

– Gil Kerlikowske, former head of CBP and the Office of National Drug Control Policy

From their perspective they’re running a business; they’re looking to whatever avenue gives them the lowest cost.

Using established roads is usually cheaper than trying to chart logistic chains into the middle of no-where. It’s also easier to hide your goods amongst a fleet of 1,000s of trucks, than in a desert where your cargo sticks out like a sore thumb.

It’s common sense when you think about it RET.


Yes, they are a consistent and diligent bunch known for their honesty and desire to help the public enforce the laws efficiently.

I know that whenever I want the truth on a matter my first stop is to find out what the illegal drug and gun runners are saying; you certainly have a compelling argument for your position here.

Now that I know what the illegal drug and gun importers are saying I suppose that I too will have to adopt a different opinion on the best way to stop them; you know, if I decide to embrace Moronism.


RET, if you want to say the Drug agencies have no ability, and no idea where most of the drugs are being trafficked, by all means.

It’s the same as saying they’re bad at their jobs. They’re the ones saying this is where the drugs come through.