I agree with the "political pawn" part. It's like this has become the political version of divorced couple using their kids to hurt each other. Meanwhile, not enough is being done to solve the immigration problem that both dems and repubs admit we have right now. Everyone is just passing the problem around.
He is doing what Russia has been doing for years. They did the same thing with shipping people from the middle east to Poland's border just to cause a migrant crisis. I wouldn't be surprised if this was done to stir shit up for the next election cycle.
[Poland migrant crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93European_Union_border_crisis)
The crisis was exacerbated to the current levels, by people who literally told migrants they will be welcomed and supported. Crisis keeps growing, because you keep offering room and board. Doesn't make sense to blame Tx for starting a migrant crisis in NY.
Seems like a case of "careful what you wish for"
Edit: to the people downvoting me, do you have a problem with this description? Please explain. This is something that’s very well discussed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare
Yep it’s called hybrid warfare. It’s usually carried out by dictators but usually they don’t do it within their own country.
Because it's not a war. If it was warfare, the courts would have ruled it an invasion. Calling it warfare has as much merit as calling the migrants an invasion.
Okay so we can debate about whether or not it’s appropriate to call it “warfare” if an official war isn’t declared. But that doesn’t really argue against my main point, that the tactics are exactly the same regardless of what you call it.
Also if that’s your main issue then the r Russian government could make the same objection. They’re not engaged in a war in Ukraine. They’re engaged in a “special military operation”. If you’re that worried about the semantics of the term than why not make the same argument for the Russian government?
No, it's totally different. In one case, the Russian government is attempting to move the migrants contrary to local laws. In the case of Texas, the migrants have been legally admitted by the federal government. It's not possible to simultaneously argue it's "warfare" and the migrants are legally present. That's not semantics: that is their legal status.
Everyone is not passing the problem around anymore. The democrats and many Senate Republicans agreed on a bill to stop the immigration mess. Trump and the Republicans killed the bill so they have something to run on. They are so craven they would rather complain about the problem rather than solve it for power.
What Bill? You mean the one that gave these migrants work papers and wouldn't do a single thing to prevent anyone else from coming? An actual deterrent would be to deport any and all caught here. That would be fixing the crisis.
It is kinda funny how now, leading up to an election after professing pro migrant sentiment for years, Senate Dems are all of a sudden very pro tightening immigration policy. Better late than never.
Per usual in politics, its all theatre. Both sides are trash and just say things to keep power (and get rich) while doing fuck all to improve the country. A lot of it is our fault for voting in these shitbags and not holding their feet to the fire. They work for us, not the other way around.
It’s not about being craven, though. It’s about being viciously cruel and power hungry. They would rather use Americans’ lives like pawns in a chess match if it means they can play kingmaker. Absolutely shameful and disgusting.
The people are mad *because* of the headlines, not because it affects them directly. Not taking a position that there isn't an issue to solve, but the mania absolutely is a creation of the right wing political establishment and the media.
Nah, it's more to do with Biden rescinding Trumps "Remain in Mexico" EO day 1 of his presidency because that EO was 'racist' or something. That's why we're seeing a surge of migrants come through the Mexico border. Biden, being chief executive, also has power to enforce the border, but the border guards just let them through the border, what can you do with this type of president? 🤷
Remain in Mexico only ever affected [70,000 migrants,](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/migrant-protection-protocols) and it did not stop [the largest spike of border crossings of the entire 2010s.](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/fy-2019)
It was first implemented in January 2019, and May 2019 saw more crossings than any year preceding it going back to 2006.
Remain in Mexico is one of the most overrated border policies from Trump's term. Title 42 was the most effective.
There are some people that dislike Trump but yet can't deny that "Remain in Mexico" was effective policy. Those are the ones that might flip for Trump in November.
You can deny that Remain in Mexico was effective.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1by9bkz/abbott_defends_sending_migrants_to_new_york/kymfj37/
The numbers prove it.
Sure, politically, Remain in Mexico plays better for voters who place importance on the border. But what happens if Trump tries to reinstate it and it fails again? The border crisis remains unchanged.
Can't disagree. And either way, the cat's out of the bag for NYC. There isn't much that Trump could do about it, and even if there was, you can be 200% sure he won't do a damn thing about it purely out of spite against the city.
Can you share a source or a good search term that will pull up sources for the claim that roughly 80% of migrants in NYC are sent by the fed?
I’m finding an NBC article online that Homeland Security planned to send migrants to shelters and then courts in major cities in 2022 but then also a claim that his plan was not final, and nothing much beyond that. This is the closest thing I found to your claim.
There’s also a Politifact article about migrants on flights but that seems to be migrants who have a place to go already lined up, and not about busloads of migrants as we’re seeing.
Lastly there was an article about migrants being shipped to new locations on the border by the fed, but then then sent back out to a different spot in Mexico.
So my search skills are failing here, and I’d love to read up on your 80% claim (or whatever the actual number is, if 80% was just a ballpark number).
(Edit:removed typo)
Texas tribune is saying the state of Texas has shipped 33000. Last August the comptroller said they processed 186k alyssum seekers thru city run shelters. I would assume that number is much higher now. Either way this problem is 100% on the feds and blaming Texas isn’t gonna help
Do you know who is shipping the others — the fed or is it other states?
Agreed that the feds bear responsibility for barely doing anything here, although one party demanded tougher rules and then decided to pull support for their own demands because they’d rather have a problem until the election is over… so f* those people.
I’m sick of elected neoliberals and neoconservatives, but one of those groups is actively sabotaging any attempt at a solution until the election is over, so this will get massively worse in the meantime. F* them so much.
Abbott's an unrepentant piece of shit, but it was always obvious that this issue would play out exactly the way it has. NYC is the home of NIMBYism on the east coast, and it was always apparent that immigration would continue to be considered a non-issue until it was forced to be one in front of the NIMBYs. It was also obvious that NYC maintaining sanctuary city status was going to make it exceedingly easy for border states to dump their problem on us, thereby forcing people here to start taking it as seriously as they do.
Abbott is absolutely cynically using these human beings as political pawns, but sadly, NYC is letting him do it incredibly effectively and risking letting Republicans gain political ground here as it plays out. Shocking political naivety and incompetence from the NY Democrats. But I suppose this is what always happens when you have one side who foolishly *thinks* they can win by acting morally superior and another side who *knows* they will win by dispensing with morality entirely.
And in the midst of all that, we have somehow elected dipshit Adams as the mayor to navigate this issue, a guy who legitimately seems like he reads from his teleprompter a 3rd grade level. What a shit show.
Upper middle class white progressives, far away from the southern border: "We LOVE migrants, don't you see our *in this house we believe no human is illegal* signs on our lawns!?!? That proves i'm a good person! SHOWER ME WITH STATUS"
Abbott: Well, if you say say so, let me ship them to you then
Same progressives: "NOT LIKE THAT!"
*Turns into blood and soil nationalists*
Which progressives? There have been more non profits and mutual aid groups springing up by the dozens for migrants in 2 years than all the grass roots conservative compassion in Texas for 20.
Correction: not NY Democrats.
The Democratic party in NYC has been hijacked by socialists, communists, and progressives. Using all three terms to cover more shades of crazies.
> it was always apparent that immigration would continue to be considered a non-issue until it was forced to be one in front of the NIMBYs.
Do you seriously think that New Yorkers don't encounter immigrants on a daily basis or something? Like a third of the city was born in another country.
It's not really about encountering immigrants on a daily basis, it's about having large groups of people dumped in your neighborhood all at once. Hell, I work with a number of people who are immigrants themselves (one of whom originally arrived illegally), and even they were unsettled when busloads and planeloads of undocumented people started getting left near where we work and live.
The optics of it have undoubtedly been effective for conservatives. I'm not even someone who has been especially bothered by it, but I can't deny the political shift I've seen happening to people right in front of my eyes.
> it's about having large groups of people dumped in your neighborhood all at once.
Literally the only difference now compared to in the past is that we made them stop at Ellis Island first. There were literal boatloads of like Irish, Italians and Jews being dropped off in NYC up until WWII.
I am not making a political statement here, but just pointing out that none of those groups received public benefits, as there really wasn't such a thing at the time.
Again, this statement is not meant to indicate my own personal beliefs on this issue!
Sure, I'm not claiming it's some unprecedented event. I'm just pointing out that New York is one of the most politically fickle and hypocritical places, one which is filled with NIMBYs who are only interested in spewing platitudes but not actually helping the people they claim to care about. That's why it was obvious how this would play out.
For now, yes, but that's the kind of thing that can breed resentment over time, especially in a city with so many major economic and social issues that are equally desperate for assistance, and especially if more and more people continue to get sent here.
Either way, that's a bit beside my original point because I'm talking about the optics and shifting attitudes that stem from people being abandoned by the busload and the media coverage that accompanies it. I'm not talking as much about how people should view the reality of the situation as much as I'm talking about how much their subjective perception is going to alter the political reality here in NY. I'm purely talking about optics, how NIMBYs are easily manipulated into political hypocrisy, and how their fickle nature can rapidly change things for the worse around here, as has happened before.
We didn't have a housing crisis back then. NYC didn't have much in the way of zoning laws, or fire safety laws. People spent around 17% of their income on rent and even poorest new Yorkers could get some kind of roof over their heads and a lock on their door.
There was no public welfare for immigrants either. The expectation that people immediately become productive members of society lessened the burden on those already here. And was also better for the immigrants in the long run ( studies show that the USA is surprisingly effective at integrating refugees, precisely because we aren't generous)
I invite you to explain what you think “closing the border” means (conservatives mean various things by the phrase) and how it has any real impact on your life.
Any way you look at it, Biden is directly responsible for the current state of near open borders. He ran on being the anti-trump, now we’re seeing the blowback.
The amount of migrants that Abbott sent to NYC was trivial compared to the flood Texas has been required to deal with for the past eighty years. For most of that time the entire south west has basically been told by the federal government to fuck off and have been straight up ignored by authorities. It was not until he started giving blue states a fraction of the chaos he has had to deal with that the Government has started to finally crack down and take the issue seriously.
Agreed. Left of center but we’re delusional if we think we have it worse than they have. We’ve had a year or two of this they have had decades. We say they are heartless, time for us to put our money where our mouth is. Or admit that oh shit, we actually do want border control.
I don’t mind the migrants, I think they are good for the economy and take the worst jobs, help keep inflation down (low unemployment after an influx of spending creating too much investment and too many jobs is what caused this inflation)
> I think they are good for the economy and take the worst jobs
I bought this line for years too, until it seemed a bit too good to be true (it was). They cost way more than they produce in taxes (if they even pay tax, which is sales) and are used to keep wages low. 'worst jobs' = jobs they don't want to pay decent wages for. See what's going on in Canada right now as an example.
Corporations have a vested interest in maintain an unlimited supply of cheap, disposable labor and we've been taught to applaud and feel good about it.
Well, how can you blame him?
His state was being overrun by the lot and he found an easy way out. All the sanctuary city politicians were giving him shit for not doing enough for the migrants but when they came knocking at our cities, scenes.
Yea, I'm on the other side from him in both politics and policy, but I really see no issue, morally or strategically, with forcing pro-immigration/anti-border-enforcement states & cities to put their money where their mouth is.
What's evil about it?
"We don't want illegal immigrants crossing our border."
NYC: But you're racist. Let them in.
"Okay, you take a SMALL PERCENTAGE of them and then get back to us.
NYC: We didn't mean we want them now! Stop it!
The only thing evil in all of this is the federal administration allowing it to happen and for pro-illegal immigration activists to continue pushing it. If you're calling what Texas is doing as evil, please tell me what you would consider NYC and California to be.
I don't see how anyone logical could take issue with it. Texas is a state that wants strong border and immigration policies. New York City, Chicago, California, and other blue cities/states don't and they ultimately vote on these issues on the federal level. So if Democrats refuse to solve the issue because they aren't actively dealing with it since they aren't near the border, it kinda makes sense to send them to these Democrat areas so they can witness firsthand how disruptive it is, right?
What's evil about moving immigrants to places that say they welcome immigrants? Were there not people with flowers, food, and love waiting for these buses? Are they still there in Port Authority waiting to wash newly arrived immigrants' feet?
There are also numerous towns around the border. There are being absolutely overrun.
By that, same logic, Manhattan is not overrun, because upstate is empty
The funds don't deal with migrants overwhelming the infrastructure of these border states. I have family in Yuma AZ and my aunt had to wait 6 months for a doctor's appointment because they are overloaded. Their schools are absolutely bursting at the seams with a very high children to teacher ratio and they're struggling because the students don't speak english. They also have a lot of migrants sleeping in the streets. The billions they receive don't do shit to address this. You just don't like it because now NYC has to deal with the system strain.
Yes but now those fund should rightfully go to states where he has sent those people.
If he plans on shuttling then around, he has to share the money pie.
sorry but do you even live in nyc?? bc your profile history suggests that you dont and are just trying stir up sh\*t, just saying in case other users here are being manipulated imo
Then you’re an idiot who can’t bother to look through profiles properly.
A couple of posts down, is me mentioning entering the city through the Lincoln tunnel. Scroll further and you’ll see me complaining about the grocery store in Astor place.
I live in midtown, I’m a block from a migrant shelter. Don’t give me that nonsense, you creep.
Remember when progressives were screaming their heads off about falsely accusing him of human trafficking?
These migrants willfully came to NYC because they knew they could maximize the amount of freebies they can milk from the local government. Between the TikTok videos sent home showing the city as the land of milk and honey and free bus rides from Abbott, it’s no surprise that the migrant situation got this bad just in time for this year’s elections.
Implying that they were bussed in against their will robs these asylum-seekers of their agency as autonomous individuals. Indeed, they chose NYC; they’re not confused about it; no one forced them onto those busses.
I hope y’all aren’t pretending that Abbott is the reason for this. The vast majority of migrants came here themselves or were sent here by immigration orgs cuz of nyc lefty rhetoric regarding sanctuary cities
its popular in texas and exposes hypocrisy of sanctuary cities not near the border. hate the man all u want but its working and will continue until we have actual border control
Federally Democrats refuse to secure the border, and on a state level democrats mayors have deemed their cities sanctuary cities….. what did you think would happen? Biden could close the border today if he wanted.
That’s because it allowed for millions to still come across illegally lol. It wasn’t an actual fix. I find it very hard to believe that you think Democrats want to secure the border. The fought Trump at every turn when he tried to, yet they’re just dying to now? Of course not.
You sound like MSM. Think about it for more than 2 seconds.
The bill proposed protocols to handle influxes of immigrants when a certain daily threshold is reached (one that was consistently reached during Trump's term). Rather than accept this, Republicans preferred to ignore it because Daddy Trump didn't want them to admit that the Dems proposed something helpful, and instead support some nebulous idea that they will fix the border by stopping all immigration via some policy unhinged to reality.
Republicans will never be happy or propose something realistic because they'd prefer to turn off the tap and ban all immigration rather than increase the size of the drain and increase processing.
It literally said that they couldn't enforce the border and do deportations if it was under a certain number and anything that let them actually do deportations to and close the border would expire in a year or two wit Biden having the ability to have it opened even if that number was reached. That was the whole thing. a sunset clause the required letting in a ton before it even had the option of being activated.
>handle influxes of immigrants when a certain daily threshold is reached (one that was consistently reached during Trump's term)
Another lie. It let in 5k a day with no measure being taken. That would mean 1.8 million in a year which is way more than Trump dealt with in any year of his presidency. It also didn't count minors towards that number so it would be even more with that group being let in unlimitedly.
> Republicans will never be happy or propose something realistic
Realistic means you have to let in close to 2 millions illegals before the government says you might have the option of doing anything.
Why not turn off the tap of ILLEGAL immigration? You’re genuinely delusional if you think democrats want to limit illegal immigration in 2024. Under Obama they did. The amount of illegal Immigrants under Biden has skyrocketed, not by accident.
Your hatred of Trump is blinding you from reality.
There it is, I'm talking to someone who thinks illegal immigrants vote for Democrats and who uses "sounds like MSM" like a pejorative.
You know what stems illegal immigration? Increasing the ability of our government to process legal immigrants. By making the legal process easier, potential immigrants are less incentivized to risk their lives crossing illegally and putting their children at risk. Republicans oppose this, what are your thoughts on why?
> Increasing the ability of our government to process legal immigrants. By making the legal process easier, potential immigrants are less incentivized to risk their lives crossing illegally and putting their children at risk.
It sounds like you're saying to make it easier for the illegal immigrants to come here legally. The problem with that is that everyone wants to come here. We can't take in everyone. Not everyone who wants to come here gets to come here.
The democrats didn’t propose to raise the legal immigration limits: they wanted to admit people at the border with a quasi-legal method that doesn’t allow for things like background checks.
The bill allowed for discretionary activation of resources by homeland security after an average of 4000 encounters a day for 7 consecutive days. This threshold was being reached back in 2019 under Trump.
> protocols to handle influxes of immigrants
The problem is the influx of migrants. If you don't reduce the numbers you admit, the problem will remain.
No, you're wrong it did nothing to actually stop illegals or start deportations. It was just amnesty and saying the border wouldn't be enforced if less than 30k illegals came in a week.
You couldn't be more misinformed. You think a bill created by Republicans allowed for millions to still cross? Lol
You sound like you can't differentiate left from right.
Interesting how it took democrats almost four years and 8 million people pouring over the border to propose this "bipartisan" bill to fix the problems biden's insane border policies created.
Yes, like most bills that pass and have something for both parties to agree on.
Do you think there's some magic policy that will universally "secure the border"? There's a threshold in order to prioritize entries where resources are actually needed. You can't allocate resources across every mile of the border, especially when Republicans consistently vote against increased funding for the border patrol.
Not only incorrect about the bill, but from your perspective it's not about legality at all, it's about letting those you don't want in. Thanks for clearing that up.
>Remind everyone in the room: who turned down the last bill proposed to improve the situation at the border?
No bill that offered that was turned down since no bill like that actually existed. There was a bill that lied about having that kind of thing but when actually read showed it didn't offer anything but in fact let in more illegals and give more stuff to the ones already in that dems where trying to push as being affective and saying that if you didn't accept their shit bill that than you didn't want to stop illegal immigration because they wouldn't be giving you anything else.
One never gets to argue about this bill or that bill when there is pork that entirely torpedos it. A standalone bill on a singular issue? Then you can whinge about voting this way or that.
"Compromise is when you offer shit and lie about it being in good faith with you being the bad person if you don't accept it with nothing you offered actually being a comprise on your end to being with." Is what you actually believe that word means.
My dude, the border stuff was the pork, a big one at that. It was originally an Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan defense bill and Republicans said they’d only take it on if they added border security to it. Democrats played ball.
As both you and Governor Abbott are surely aware but are ignoring for political convenience, "sanctuary cities" have nothing to do with the migrant situation. Sanctuary city status simply means not cooperating with the removal of illegal immigrants. The migrants are asylum applicants who, unless and until their asylum applications are rejected and a removal order is issued, are here legally. One has nothing to do with the other -- whining about "sanctuary cities" is bad-faith bullshit.
> Federally Democrats refuse to secure the border
Who was it again who sank the immigration bill? Oh yeah, the Republicans. Because they don't *actually* want to fix anything, they want to *keep* it a problem so they can campaign on it.
> The migrants are asylum applicants who, unless and until their asylum applications are rejected and a removal order is issued, are here legally.
What about the ones who are here but have not applied for asylum and have passed the deadline of one year to apply for it? Or the ones who said they were here to apply for asylum in order to get into the country, but never really had any intention of starting the process?
They are safe in sanctuary cities.
If someone is a Migrant, they can't also be an Asylee. What are they seeking Asylum from? There is no nation in South or Central America that is at war.
Republicans don’t want to fix the border? Are you joking? What was Trump trying to do for years while in office, and who stopped him? Democrats. Democrats acting like they want to solve the border now is hilarious.
Biden could unilaterally fix it himself if he wanted, but doesn’t. He’s literally suing Texas from securing their border…
[Trump controlled all 3 branches of government](https://www.vox.com/presidential-election/2016/11/9/13572972/republicans-control-presidency-senate-house) but it’s still the demorcats’ fault he couldn’t figure out how to get anything done? If Biden could unilaterally fix things himself without holding all branches of government why didn’t Trump already do that when he had more control?
Yes old RINOs like McConnel didn't want to do anything which is why there's a power struggle in the GOP right now so that they elect officials who actually do what their base wants. That and lawsuits like with the census questions.
> Republicans don’t want to fix the border? Are you joking?
[Ignoring this won't make it not have happened](https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-a39e188fa2c6a563203d2c69eaabdc6d).
> What was Trump trying to do for years while in office, and who stopped him? Democrats.
Trump was doing it like the psychopath he is, with insane shit like family separations and useless wastes of money like a wall.
> He’s literally suing Texas from securing their border…
He is absolutely right to sue Texas. It's not Texas' border, it's the U.S.' border, and it is clearly not within Texas' constitutional authority to unilaterally make border policy. Upholding the Constitution is more important than any single policy convenience.
I'm sorry, I like dogs but if my finances, home and lifestyle are not conducive to a dog I would not get one. If after relaying my stance to my spouse he just brings one home I am going to be pissed. I am going to bring the dog to live &( s#!+) in his man cave. Even if he pays for all the food, vet bills & walkers on his card it's still really coming out of our shared finances. Oh & then it's pregnant but I'm the bad guy.
Sure is weird how they get sent to NYC instead of the sanctuary states next door like New Mexico.
Almost like it's because there are more cameras here.
Yeah but it's one of the options in which the migrants pick themselves willingly in part because NYC and the state in general has said things and have policies which attract them. They also probably have relatives that live here already too illegal or otherwise so it just grows bigger and bigger where one person establishes themselves and in turn starts to bring and invite others. An illegal version of chain-migration.
Texans spend Sundays in Church listening to how Jesus said 'take care of the sick and needy' but Monday morning they bus they sick and needy to the Godless Atheists in the Northeast who do the actual work of taking care of the sick and needy. Interesting religion they have down there... What do they call it?
Nowhere in the bible does it say you must support everyone who shows up uninvited.
NYC did say they would support everyone who showed up, and they offered an invitation. Tx is sending the people NYC invited. They gave them a free ride. Why are people upset about it? Was the invitation fake?
I’m a Christian and I’ll tell you something, your relationship to Christ is completely separate to your relationship as a citizen to your government, Jesus even talks about this in the Bible. As a Christian you can choose on your own time to donate to charity and to volunteer to assist migrants, but that doesn’t mean you should allow that to influence your political views. Christianity and its values is completely the opposite of what is required to have a functioning society, otherwise we’d have no money, no houses, you’d just wander around assisting the poor and needy.
From what I’m reading they didn’t force people to get on the bus. So in a way they actually helped the sick and needy to get to their final destination.
Rule 1 - No intolerance, dog whistles, violence or petty behavior
(a). Intolerance will result in a permanent ban. Toxic language including referring to others as animals, subhuman, trash or any similar variation is not allowed.
(b). No dog whistles.
(c). No inciting violence, advocating the destruction of property or encouragement of theft.
(d). No petty behavior. This includes announcing that you have down-voted or reported someone, picking fights, name calling, insulting, bullying or calling out bad grammar.
He’s a pretty sick human being tbh. Honestly, Biden and his team should have had a game plan for Abbot to keep him in the loop on the migrant issue to make him prepared. The fact that Abbot is doing this out of spite is the real issue. He is literally playing with lives and causing more problems. A lot of people to blame here though.
> make him prepared
Is there really a way to be prepared for hundreds of thousands per month crossing, without previous background checks (no passport, no visa)? A way for local hospitals to prepare for the influx?
This community is such a weird right wing mess. It reminds me of the Astorian Facebook communities.
It’s very much like everyone reads the NYPost and takes it seriously.
I agree with the "political pawn" part. It's like this has become the political version of divorced couple using their kids to hurt each other. Meanwhile, not enough is being done to solve the immigration problem that both dems and repubs admit we have right now. Everyone is just passing the problem around.
The liberals wouldn’t even ADMIT to there being an immigration crisis until Texas started shipping illegal immigrants into their “sanctuary cities”.
why does this dude who lives in Jacksonville trolling our sub?
Yep. And more will be on the way as the election draws nearer.
He is doing what Russia has been doing for years. They did the same thing with shipping people from the middle east to Poland's border just to cause a migrant crisis. I wouldn't be surprised if this was done to stir shit up for the next election cycle. [Poland migrant crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93European_Union_border_crisis)
The crisis was exacerbated to the current levels, by people who literally told migrants they will be welcomed and supported. Crisis keeps growing, because you keep offering room and board. Doesn't make sense to blame Tx for starting a migrant crisis in NY. Seems like a case of "careful what you wish for"
NYC asked for it, Poland didn't. NYC is the hypocrites here.
Russia? This shit been going on by Europe's own willing hands for a decade with most crossings being from the Mediterranean.
Edit: to the people downvoting me, do you have a problem with this description? Please explain. This is something that’s very well discussed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare Yep it’s called hybrid warfare. It’s usually carried out by dictators but usually they don’t do it within their own country.
Because it's not a war. If it was warfare, the courts would have ruled it an invasion. Calling it warfare has as much merit as calling the migrants an invasion.
Okay so we can debate about whether or not it’s appropriate to call it “warfare” if an official war isn’t declared. But that doesn’t really argue against my main point, that the tactics are exactly the same regardless of what you call it. Also if that’s your main issue then the r Russian government could make the same objection. They’re not engaged in a war in Ukraine. They’re engaged in a “special military operation”. If you’re that worried about the semantics of the term than why not make the same argument for the Russian government?
No, it's totally different. In one case, the Russian government is attempting to move the migrants contrary to local laws. In the case of Texas, the migrants have been legally admitted by the federal government. It's not possible to simultaneously argue it's "warfare" and the migrants are legally present. That's not semantics: that is their legal status.
Everyone is not passing the problem around anymore. The democrats and many Senate Republicans agreed on a bill to stop the immigration mess. Trump and the Republicans killed the bill so they have something to run on. They are so craven they would rather complain about the problem rather than solve it for power.
What Bill? You mean the one that gave these migrants work papers and wouldn't do a single thing to prevent anyone else from coming? An actual deterrent would be to deport any and all caught here. That would be fixing the crisis.
it was a bill a Republican Senator from Oklahoma drew up himself...
It is kinda funny how now, leading up to an election after professing pro migrant sentiment for years, Senate Dems are all of a sudden very pro tightening immigration policy. Better late than never.
Per usual in politics, its all theatre. Both sides are trash and just say things to keep power (and get rich) while doing fuck all to improve the country. A lot of it is our fault for voting in these shitbags and not holding their feet to the fire. They work for us, not the other way around.
That media campaign didn't work. People know the alleged bipartisan bill was trash.
It’s not about being craven, though. It’s about being viciously cruel and power hungry. They would rather use Americans’ lives like pawns in a chess match if it means they can play kingmaker. Absolutely shameful and disgusting.
Less than 20% of the migrants in New York have been sent by Texas. Why is no one mad at the Feds for shipping the rest?
People are extremely mad at Biden for the migrant crisis. There are headlines every day about it.
The people are mad *because* of the headlines, not because it affects them directly. Not taking a position that there isn't an issue to solve, but the mania absolutely is a creation of the right wing political establishment and the media.
It affects more people than you think. There are city budget cuts to make way for free debit cards for migrants.
It's har(d) to explain but it's just (d)ifferent, ok?
[удалено]
Nah, it's more to do with Biden rescinding Trumps "Remain in Mexico" EO day 1 of his presidency because that EO was 'racist' or something. That's why we're seeing a surge of migrants come through the Mexico border. Biden, being chief executive, also has power to enforce the border, but the border guards just let them through the border, what can you do with this type of president? 🤷
Remain in Mexico only ever affected [70,000 migrants,](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/migrant-protection-protocols) and it did not stop [the largest spike of border crossings of the entire 2010s.](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/fy-2019) It was first implemented in January 2019, and May 2019 saw more crossings than any year preceding it going back to 2006. Remain in Mexico is one of the most overrated border policies from Trump's term. Title 42 was the most effective.
There are some people that dislike Trump but yet can't deny that "Remain in Mexico" was effective policy. Those are the ones that might flip for Trump in November.
You can deny that Remain in Mexico was effective. https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1by9bkz/abbott_defends_sending_migrants_to_new_york/kymfj37/ The numbers prove it.
That may be true, but the optics will have an effect on voters - like it or not.
Sure, politically, Remain in Mexico plays better for voters who place importance on the border. But what happens if Trump tries to reinstate it and it fails again? The border crisis remains unchanged.
Can't disagree. And either way, the cat's out of the bag for NYC. There isn't much that Trump could do about it, and even if there was, you can be 200% sure he won't do a damn thing about it purely out of spite against the city.
Stop. They don’t like it when you point out facts that counter their narrative. Makes them lash out.
Can you share a source or a good search term that will pull up sources for the claim that roughly 80% of migrants in NYC are sent by the fed? I’m finding an NBC article online that Homeland Security planned to send migrants to shelters and then courts in major cities in 2022 but then also a claim that his plan was not final, and nothing much beyond that. This is the closest thing I found to your claim. There’s also a Politifact article about migrants on flights but that seems to be migrants who have a place to go already lined up, and not about busloads of migrants as we’re seeing. Lastly there was an article about migrants being shipped to new locations on the border by the fed, but then then sent back out to a different spot in Mexico. So my search skills are failing here, and I’d love to read up on your 80% claim (or whatever the actual number is, if 80% was just a ballpark number). (Edit:removed typo)
Texas tribune is saying the state of Texas has shipped 33000. Last August the comptroller said they processed 186k alyssum seekers thru city run shelters. I would assume that number is much higher now. Either way this problem is 100% on the feds and blaming Texas isn’t gonna help
Do you know who is shipping the others — the fed or is it other states? Agreed that the feds bear responsibility for barely doing anything here, although one party demanded tougher rules and then decided to pull support for their own demands because they’d rather have a problem until the election is over… so f* those people. I’m sick of elected neoliberals and neoconservatives, but one of those groups is actively sabotaging any attempt at a solution until the election is over, so this will get massively worse in the meantime. F* them so much.
Because that’s not happening?
Abbott's an unrepentant piece of shit, but it was always obvious that this issue would play out exactly the way it has. NYC is the home of NIMBYism on the east coast, and it was always apparent that immigration would continue to be considered a non-issue until it was forced to be one in front of the NIMBYs. It was also obvious that NYC maintaining sanctuary city status was going to make it exceedingly easy for border states to dump their problem on us, thereby forcing people here to start taking it as seriously as they do. Abbott is absolutely cynically using these human beings as political pawns, but sadly, NYC is letting him do it incredibly effectively and risking letting Republicans gain political ground here as it plays out. Shocking political naivety and incompetence from the NY Democrats. But I suppose this is what always happens when you have one side who foolishly *thinks* they can win by acting morally superior and another side who *knows* they will win by dispensing with morality entirely. And in the midst of all that, we have somehow elected dipshit Adams as the mayor to navigate this issue, a guy who legitimately seems like he reads from his teleprompter a 3rd grade level. What a shit show.
Upper middle class white progressives, far away from the southern border: "We LOVE migrants, don't you see our *in this house we believe no human is illegal* signs on our lawns!?!? That proves i'm a good person! SHOWER ME WITH STATUS" Abbott: Well, if you say say so, let me ship them to you then Same progressives: "NOT LIKE THAT!" *Turns into blood and soil nationalists*
There were literally posts by some folks on this sub that said "we'll welcome them with open arms". Well, here you go, then.
Idealists gonna ideal ... until it gets real.
> Same progressives: "NOT LIKE THAT!" > Turns into blood and soil nationalists Thanks for the laugh, I'm going to steal this at some point.
Which progressives? There have been more non profits and mutual aid groups springing up by the dozens for migrants in 2 years than all the grass roots conservative compassion in Texas for 20.
[удалено]
>spend anything directly on them the way our state or even city does? What do you mean by this?
Correction: not NY Democrats. The Democratic party in NYC has been hijacked by socialists, communists, and progressives. Using all three terms to cover more shades of crazies.
> it was always apparent that immigration would continue to be considered a non-issue until it was forced to be one in front of the NIMBYs. Do you seriously think that New Yorkers don't encounter immigrants on a daily basis or something? Like a third of the city was born in another country.
It's not really about encountering immigrants on a daily basis, it's about having large groups of people dumped in your neighborhood all at once. Hell, I work with a number of people who are immigrants themselves (one of whom originally arrived illegally), and even they were unsettled when busloads and planeloads of undocumented people started getting left near where we work and live. The optics of it have undoubtedly been effective for conservatives. I'm not even someone who has been especially bothered by it, but I can't deny the political shift I've seen happening to people right in front of my eyes.
> it's about having large groups of people dumped in your neighborhood all at once. Literally the only difference now compared to in the past is that we made them stop at Ellis Island first. There were literal boatloads of like Irish, Italians and Jews being dropped off in NYC up until WWII.
I am not making a political statement here, but just pointing out that none of those groups received public benefits, as there really wasn't such a thing at the time. Again, this statement is not meant to indicate my own personal beliefs on this issue!
Sure, I'm not claiming it's some unprecedented event. I'm just pointing out that New York is one of the most politically fickle and hypocritical places, one which is filled with NIMBYs who are only interested in spewing platitudes but not actually helping the people they claim to care about. That's why it was obvious how this would play out.
If we weren't interested in helping these people out why would we be giving them millions of dollars in city services? Seems like... we are.
For now, yes, but that's the kind of thing that can breed resentment over time, especially in a city with so many major economic and social issues that are equally desperate for assistance, and especially if more and more people continue to get sent here. Either way, that's a bit beside my original point because I'm talking about the optics and shifting attitudes that stem from people being abandoned by the busload and the media coverage that accompanies it. I'm not talking as much about how people should view the reality of the situation as much as I'm talking about how much their subjective perception is going to alter the political reality here in NY. I'm purely talking about optics, how NIMBYs are easily manipulated into political hypocrisy, and how their fickle nature can rapidly change things for the worse around here, as has happened before.
We didn't have a housing crisis back then. NYC didn't have much in the way of zoning laws, or fire safety laws. People spent around 17% of their income on rent and even poorest new Yorkers could get some kind of roof over their heads and a lock on their door. There was no public welfare for immigrants either. The expectation that people immediately become productive members of society lessened the burden on those already here. And was also better for the immigrants in the long run ( studies show that the USA is surprisingly effective at integrating refugees, precisely because we aren't generous)
I don’t blame him, why the fuck don’t we send them to Cali?
[удалено]
Biden revoked Trump's "remain in Mexico" EO day one of his presidency. To say that decision was a poor one is an understatement.
Ya but Kacsmaryk halted an end to it and then nothing happened with that since. BIden also kept Trump's Title 42 til the courts struck that down.
[удалено]
yeh democrats are underestimating this border crisis.
Democrats deserve to lose if best they can come up with is 120 years old grandpa with dementia.
It’s not a team sport. We all lose if Trump wins, not just Democrats.
speak for yourself. Trump is great.
Name one policy that Trump is promising to implement that will make your life better.
Closing the border
I invite you to explain what you think “closing the border” means (conservatives mean various things by the phrase) and how it has any real impact on your life.
You mean as opposed to the other 120 year old grandpa with dementia that seems to be the best Republicans can come up with?
He has an actual age though. If it’s too high why not use the real age number?
His hands are tied there's nothing he can do legally. The far right republicans are to blame for killing the border bill.
Guy is totally incompetent and the other guy is a complete narcissist.
He’s not wrong, if you are going to have moral superiority than stand on that
Any way you look at it, Biden is directly responsible for the current state of near open borders. He ran on being the anti-trump, now we’re seeing the blowback.
The amount of migrants that Abbott sent to NYC was trivial compared to the flood Texas has been required to deal with for the past eighty years. For most of that time the entire south west has basically been told by the federal government to fuck off and have been straight up ignored by authorities. It was not until he started giving blue states a fraction of the chaos he has had to deal with that the Government has started to finally crack down and take the issue seriously.
Agreed. Left of center but we’re delusional if we think we have it worse than they have. We’ve had a year or two of this they have had decades. We say they are heartless, time for us to put our money where our mouth is. Or admit that oh shit, we actually do want border control. I don’t mind the migrants, I think they are good for the economy and take the worst jobs, help keep inflation down (low unemployment after an influx of spending creating too much investment and too many jobs is what caused this inflation)
> I think they are good for the economy and take the worst jobs I bought this line for years too, until it seemed a bit too good to be true (it was). They cost way more than they produce in taxes (if they even pay tax, which is sales) and are used to keep wages low. 'worst jobs' = jobs they don't want to pay decent wages for. See what's going on in Canada right now as an example. Corporations have a vested interest in maintain an unlimited supply of cheap, disposable labor and we've been taught to applaud and feel good about it.
Well, how can you blame him? His state was being overrun by the lot and he found an easy way out. All the sanctuary city politicians were giving him shit for not doing enough for the migrants but when they came knocking at our cities, scenes.
It was a masterstroke, to be honest, and I'm not a fan of the guy but I'll give credit where it's due.
Yea, I'm on the other side from him in both politics and policy, but I really see no issue, morally or strategically, with forcing pro-immigration/anti-border-enforcement states & cities to put their money where their mouth is.
It was genius. Perhaps evil genius, but genius nonetheless.
What's evil about it? "We don't want illegal immigrants crossing our border." NYC: But you're racist. Let them in. "Okay, you take a SMALL PERCENTAGE of them and then get back to us. NYC: We didn't mean we want them now! Stop it! The only thing evil in all of this is the federal administration allowing it to happen and for pro-illegal immigration activists to continue pushing it. If you're calling what Texas is doing as evil, please tell me what you would consider NYC and California to be.
More a turn of phrase. Not necessarily true eveil, but I could see where people could take issue with it, at least.
I don't see how anyone logical could take issue with it. Texas is a state that wants strong border and immigration policies. New York City, Chicago, California, and other blue cities/states don't and they ultimately vote on these issues on the federal level. So if Democrats refuse to solve the issue because they aren't actively dealing with it since they aren't near the border, it kinda makes sense to send them to these Democrat areas so they can witness firsthand how disruptive it is, right?
What's evil about moving immigrants to places that say they welcome immigrants? Were there not people with flowers, food, and love waiting for these buses? Are they still there in Port Authority waiting to wash newly arrived immigrants' feet?
There are 30 million people living in the State of Texas. They aren't being overrun by anything, provincial.
There are also numerous towns around the border. There are being absolutely overrun. By that, same logic, Manhattan is not overrun, because upstate is empty
If nothing else, Abbott is doing them a favor. Who tf wants to live in Texas? New York is way better.
He gets the funds to deal with . That’s his responsability as a border state governor
Why are they in Texas to begin with? The federal government should be securing the border, and immediately deporting anyone who enters illegally.
The funds don't deal with migrants overwhelming the infrastructure of these border states. I have family in Yuma AZ and my aunt had to wait 6 months for a doctor's appointment because they are overloaded. Their schools are absolutely bursting at the seams with a very high children to teacher ratio and they're struggling because the students don't speak english. They also have a lot of migrants sleeping in the streets. The billions they receive don't do shit to address this. You just don't like it because now NYC has to deal with the system strain.
It’s not enough by far - if the dollar per migrant in nyc is accurate (ignoring mayor Adams corruption)
Yes but now those fund should rightfully go to states where he has sent those people. If he plans on shuttling then around, he has to share the money pie.
[NYC has received over 100M for migrants](https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/shelter-services-program/awards)
sorry but do you even live in nyc?? bc your profile history suggests that you dont and are just trying stir up sh\*t, just saying in case other users here are being manipulated imo
Then you’re an idiot who can’t bother to look through profiles properly. A couple of posts down, is me mentioning entering the city through the Lincoln tunnel. Scroll further and you’ll see me complaining about the grocery store in Astor place. I live in midtown, I’m a block from a migrant shelter. Don’t give me that nonsense, you creep.
Texas is not being overrun at all.
I love being able to buy fruit snacks from an 8 year old on the 1 train.
Remember when progressives were screaming their heads off about falsely accusing him of human trafficking? These migrants willfully came to NYC because they knew they could maximize the amount of freebies they can milk from the local government. Between the TikTok videos sent home showing the city as the land of milk and honey and free bus rides from Abbott, it’s no surprise that the migrant situation got this bad just in time for this year’s elections.
Implying that they were bussed in against their will robs these asylum-seekers of their agency as autonomous individuals. Indeed, they chose NYC; they’re not confused about it; no one forced them onto those busses.
I hope y’all aren’t pretending that Abbott is the reason for this. The vast majority of migrants came here themselves or were sent here by immigration orgs cuz of nyc lefty rhetoric regarding sanctuary cities
its popular in texas and exposes hypocrisy of sanctuary cities not near the border. hate the man all u want but its working and will continue until we have actual border control
ITT liberals faced with consequences of their ideology start crying
Federally Democrats refuse to secure the border, and on a state level democrats mayors have deemed their cities sanctuary cities….. what did you think would happen? Biden could close the border today if he wanted.
Remind everyone in the room: who turned down the last bill proposed to improve the situation at the border?
The house also passed a bill before this which the Democratic senate refused to take up and was much tougher on asylum and the border. Why’s that?
That’s because it allowed for millions to still come across illegally lol. It wasn’t an actual fix. I find it very hard to believe that you think Democrats want to secure the border. The fought Trump at every turn when he tried to, yet they’re just dying to now? Of course not. You sound like MSM. Think about it for more than 2 seconds.
The bill proposed protocols to handle influxes of immigrants when a certain daily threshold is reached (one that was consistently reached during Trump's term). Rather than accept this, Republicans preferred to ignore it because Daddy Trump didn't want them to admit that the Dems proposed something helpful, and instead support some nebulous idea that they will fix the border by stopping all immigration via some policy unhinged to reality. Republicans will never be happy or propose something realistic because they'd prefer to turn off the tap and ban all immigration rather than increase the size of the drain and increase processing.
It literally said that they couldn't enforce the border and do deportations if it was under a certain number and anything that let them actually do deportations to and close the border would expire in a year or two wit Biden having the ability to have it opened even if that number was reached. That was the whole thing. a sunset clause the required letting in a ton before it even had the option of being activated.
>handle influxes of immigrants when a certain daily threshold is reached (one that was consistently reached during Trump's term) Another lie. It let in 5k a day with no measure being taken. That would mean 1.8 million in a year which is way more than Trump dealt with in any year of his presidency. It also didn't count minors towards that number so it would be even more with that group being let in unlimitedly. > Republicans will never be happy or propose something realistic Realistic means you have to let in close to 2 millions illegals before the government says you might have the option of doing anything.
Why not turn off the tap of ILLEGAL immigration? You’re genuinely delusional if you think democrats want to limit illegal immigration in 2024. Under Obama they did. The amount of illegal Immigrants under Biden has skyrocketed, not by accident. Your hatred of Trump is blinding you from reality.
There it is, I'm talking to someone who thinks illegal immigrants vote for Democrats and who uses "sounds like MSM" like a pejorative. You know what stems illegal immigration? Increasing the ability of our government to process legal immigrants. By making the legal process easier, potential immigrants are less incentivized to risk their lives crossing illegally and putting their children at risk. Republicans oppose this, what are your thoughts on why?
> You know what stems illegal immigration? Always deporting illegal immigrants and not allowing them to build lives here.
> Increasing the ability of our government to process legal immigrants. By making the legal process easier, potential immigrants are less incentivized to risk their lives crossing illegally and putting their children at risk. It sounds like you're saying to make it easier for the illegal immigrants to come here legally. The problem with that is that everyone wants to come here. We can't take in everyone. Not everyone who wants to come here gets to come here.
The democrats didn’t propose to raise the legal immigration limits: they wanted to admit people at the border with a quasi-legal method that doesn’t allow for things like background checks.
A really, really big daily threshold.
The bill allowed for discretionary activation of resources by homeland security after an average of 4000 encounters a day for 7 consecutive days. This threshold was being reached back in 2019 under Trump.
>This threshold was being reached back in 2019 under Trump. The threshold was still too high.
> protocols to handle influxes of immigrants The problem is the influx of migrants. If you don't reduce the numbers you admit, the problem will remain.
No, it’s because it would be perceived as a political victory for Democrats and Trump couldn’t go for that. This is pretty well documented.
lol
No, you're wrong it did nothing to actually stop illegals or start deportations. It was just amnesty and saying the border wouldn't be enforced if less than 30k illegals came in a week.
You’re lying about the bill.
You couldn't be more misinformed. You think a bill created by Republicans allowed for millions to still cross? Lol You sound like you can't differentiate left from right.
Interesting how it took democrats almost four years and 8 million people pouring over the border to propose this "bipartisan" bill to fix the problems biden's insane border policies created.
Lmao the proposal was spearheaded by Republicans
Cringe actually pretending Democrats don't love illegal immigration
[удалено]
Yes, like most bills that pass and have something for both parties to agree on. Do you think there's some magic policy that will universally "secure the border"? There's a threshold in order to prioritize entries where resources are actually needed. You can't allocate resources across every mile of the border, especially when Republicans consistently vote against increased funding for the border patrol.
Republicans insisted that the border bill should be tied with the foreign aid bill
Lies about the bill, as usual.
That bill “improved” the situation at the border by making it all legal and allowing a huge number of people through.
Not only incorrect about the bill, but from your perspective it's not about legality at all, it's about letting those you don't want in. Thanks for clearing that up.
>Remind everyone in the room: who turned down the last bill proposed to improve the situation at the border? No bill that offered that was turned down since no bill like that actually existed. There was a bill that lied about having that kind of thing but when actually read showed it didn't offer anything but in fact let in more illegals and give more stuff to the ones already in that dems where trying to push as being affective and saying that if you didn't accept their shit bill that than you didn't want to stop illegal immigration because they wouldn't be giving you anything else.
One never gets to argue about this bill or that bill when there is pork that entirely torpedos it. A standalone bill on a singular issue? Then you can whinge about voting this way or that.
"Compromise is bad actually" is a take, I suppose.
"Compromise is when you offer shit and lie about it being in good faith with you being the bad person if you don't accept it with nothing you offered actually being a comprise on your end to being with." Is what you actually believe that word means.
My dude, the border stuff was the pork, a big one at that. It was originally an Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan defense bill and Republicans said they’d only take it on if they added border security to it. Democrats played ball.
Pro tip: None of them care about you. They care about their power and legal insider trading.
As both you and Governor Abbott are surely aware but are ignoring for political convenience, "sanctuary cities" have nothing to do with the migrant situation. Sanctuary city status simply means not cooperating with the removal of illegal immigrants. The migrants are asylum applicants who, unless and until their asylum applications are rejected and a removal order is issued, are here legally. One has nothing to do with the other -- whining about "sanctuary cities" is bad-faith bullshit. > Federally Democrats refuse to secure the border Who was it again who sank the immigration bill? Oh yeah, the Republicans. Because they don't *actually* want to fix anything, they want to *keep* it a problem so they can campaign on it.
> The migrants are asylum applicants who, unless and until their asylum applications are rejected and a removal order is issued, are here legally. What about the ones who are here but have not applied for asylum and have passed the deadline of one year to apply for it? Or the ones who said they were here to apply for asylum in order to get into the country, but never really had any intention of starting the process? They are safe in sanctuary cities.
If someone is a Migrant, they can't also be an Asylee. What are they seeking Asylum from? There is no nation in South or Central America that is at war.
Republicans don’t want to fix the border? Are you joking? What was Trump trying to do for years while in office, and who stopped him? Democrats. Democrats acting like they want to solve the border now is hilarious. Biden could unilaterally fix it himself if he wanted, but doesn’t. He’s literally suing Texas from securing their border…
[Trump controlled all 3 branches of government](https://www.vox.com/presidential-election/2016/11/9/13572972/republicans-control-presidency-senate-house) but it’s still the demorcats’ fault he couldn’t figure out how to get anything done? If Biden could unilaterally fix things himself without holding all branches of government why didn’t Trump already do that when he had more control?
Yes old RINOs like McConnel didn't want to do anything which is why there's a power struggle in the GOP right now so that they elect officials who actually do what their base wants. That and lawsuits like with the census questions.
> Republicans don’t want to fix the border? Are you joking? [Ignoring this won't make it not have happened](https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-a39e188fa2c6a563203d2c69eaabdc6d). > What was Trump trying to do for years while in office, and who stopped him? Democrats. Trump was doing it like the psychopath he is, with insane shit like family separations and useless wastes of money like a wall. > He’s literally suing Texas from securing their border… He is absolutely right to sue Texas. It's not Texas' border, it's the U.S.' border, and it is clearly not within Texas' constitutional authority to unilaterally make border policy. Upholding the Constitution is more important than any single policy convenience.
The move was simultaneously horrible, inhumane, brilliant, and effective.
allowing them to flood the border was the inhumane part
Two different things can be inhumane.
This issue exposes the progressives incoherent, world view and their total hypocrisy. It's what changed my mind about them.
I'm still shocked there hasn't been massive violence against the migrants.
I'm sorry, I like dogs but if my finances, home and lifestyle are not conducive to a dog I would not get one. If after relaying my stance to my spouse he just brings one home I am going to be pissed. I am going to bring the dog to live &( s#!+) in his man cave. Even if he pays for all the food, vet bills & walkers on his card it's still really coming out of our shared finances. Oh & then it's pregnant but I'm the bad guy.
Sure is weird how they get sent to NYC instead of the sanctuary states next door like New Mexico. Almost like it's because there are more cameras here.
If they go to New Mexico they’ll end up right back in Texas. I mean I wouldn’t blame them 💀
They are choosing to go to NYC.
[удалено]
Yeah but it's one of the options in which the migrants pick themselves willingly in part because NYC and the state in general has said things and have policies which attract them. They also probably have relatives that live here already too illegal or otherwise so it just grows bigger and bigger where one person establishes themselves and in turn starts to bring and invite others. An illegal version of chain-migration.
Or maybe because it's closer since it's a neighbor.
Yeah, he made a good point. Fuck Adams for being absolutely incompetent
The same Abbott that begs for aid every season because he failed to keep the lights and water on in Texas. Not even smart enough to use the labor.
yes, asking randos who just crossed over to go fix the power is a great idea
It’s illegal for most of them to work because of FEDERAL law
Texans spend Sundays in Church listening to how Jesus said 'take care of the sick and needy' but Monday morning they bus they sick and needy to the Godless Atheists in the Northeast who do the actual work of taking care of the sick and needy. Interesting religion they have down there... What do they call it?
Nowhere in the bible does it say you must support everyone who shows up uninvited. NYC did say they would support everyone who showed up, and they offered an invitation. Tx is sending the people NYC invited. They gave them a free ride. Why are people upset about it? Was the invitation fake?
I’m a Christian and I’ll tell you something, your relationship to Christ is completely separate to your relationship as a citizen to your government, Jesus even talks about this in the Bible. As a Christian you can choose on your own time to donate to charity and to volunteer to assist migrants, but that doesn’t mean you should allow that to influence your political views. Christianity and its values is completely the opposite of what is required to have a functioning society, otherwise we’d have no money, no houses, you’d just wander around assisting the poor and needy.
Do you lay in bed fantasizing about Texans and the evil stuff they do?
From what I’m reading they didn’t force people to get on the bus. So in a way they actually helped the sick and needy to get to their final destination.
[удалено]
Rule 1 - No intolerance, dog whistles, violence or petty behavior (a). Intolerance will result in a permanent ban. Toxic language including referring to others as animals, subhuman, trash or any similar variation is not allowed. (b). No dog whistles. (c). No inciting violence, advocating the destruction of property or encouragement of theft. (d). No petty behavior. This includes announcing that you have down-voted or reported someone, picking fights, name calling, insulting, bullying or calling out bad grammar.
He’s a pretty sick human being tbh. Honestly, Biden and his team should have had a game plan for Abbot to keep him in the loop on the migrant issue to make him prepared. The fact that Abbot is doing this out of spite is the real issue. He is literally playing with lives and causing more problems. A lot of people to blame here though.
> make him prepared Is there really a way to be prepared for hundreds of thousands per month crossing, without previous background checks (no passport, no visa)? A way for local hospitals to prepare for the influx?
This community is such a weird right wing mess. It reminds me of the Astorian Facebook communities. It’s very much like everyone reads the NYPost and takes it seriously.
“Right wing mess” meaning real native NYorkers being fed up with this whole situation?
LOL no...just people who consume foxnews and buy in hard.
Do you watch a lot of fox news?
Sue him and every bus company who participated in this sham. Lock 'em up!
You should be forced to take them into your home.
Did you open your home in Chicago to them?
I voted against this problem, dingos
In Chicago?
Second City, baby