The challenges ahead (Biden's America)

[Alatar]

No it wasn't. It's genuinely refreshing to hear the other perspective without hyperbole.

[N.E. Brigand]

Question: if the border is open, why were these migrants hiding inside a truck?

If you don't want or aren't able to walk the hundreds of miles on your own, you pay the cartels to traffic you in. If you can get 100 miles into the U.S., you can avoid Title 42 scrutiny.

Maybe we should set some definitions, because I'm not sure what, in any practical way, a closed border would look like. These people died trying to avoid U.S. immigration. They had to take extraordinary measures not to be turned away. They could have walked hundreds of miles through a desert (and lots of people have died doing that over the years), or they could pay to endure very dangerous conditions in a hot, crowded truck. What they couldn't do was count on being able to enter the U.S and reach their destination unimpeded, because, or so it seems to me, the border is not "open."

I mean, even the Berlin Wall wasn't completely successful. So what defines an open vs. closed border?

And then I would want to ask Gov. Abbott if he agrees with those definitions, and what he would have the federal government do that it's not already doing to stop unauthorized immigrants to reach "closed" status, and then I would ask the public at large: are you willing to take those steps? Not long ago, Gov. Abbott pulled a stunt on the border, as as I noted at the time:

Even Texas's Agricultural Commissioner, Sid Miller, who is endorsed by Donald Trump, says that Abbott's "enhanced safety inspections" on trucks entering Texas from Mexico are a "misguided policy" that "is stopping food from getting to grocery store shelves and, in many cases, causing food to rot in trucks—many of which are owned by Texas and other American companies. It is simply political theater." ...

A Washington Post writer notes that "Governor Greg Abbott's 'enhanced' truck inspections turned up zero drugs or migrants, but cost Texas consumers and businesses an estimated $4.2 billion. Delays resulted in $240 million in spoiled produce alone."

Abbott is a showboating ghoul making political hay with the corpses of people he doesn't care about in the least.

[Cerin]

Maybe we should set some definitions, because I'm not sure what, in any practical way, a closed border would look like.

No one that I know of is talking about a 'closed' border. What people are talking about is enforcing the country's immigration laws, which this admin. is not doing. Mayorkas has essentially suspended these laws. ICE is prohibited from deporting most illegal entries, and are instead being deployed, with CBP officers as facilitators to smooth the entry of the unprecedented numbers of illegals coming in. You don't have to speculate about what, in any practical way, a 'closed' (i.e., enforced) border would look like. You have only to look back one year and a half, to the policies Trump put in place, which achieved historically low illegal border crossings. The difference can be boiled down to one simple thing -- people in other countries knew they would not be allowed to stay in this country during Trump's presidency, whether they snuck in illegally and were caught, or erroneously applied for amnesty (economic migrants don't qualify for amnesty). Now, people know they will not only not be deported, they will be welcomed in a coordinated operation with DHS and various NGOs, and be transported to the country's interior by bus or by plane.

Do you remember Ross Perot's 'giant sucking sound.' Well, there is again a giant sucking sound, created by the truth everyone in the world currently understands (except for the people who get their information exclusively from American mainstream media) -- if you can manage to get here, you will be let in and allowed to stay. 

These people died trying to avoid U.S. immigration.

It is not hard to avoid U.S. immigration today. Most of the border is unpatroled. CBP agents are being used to facilitate entry, not to patrol the border.

They had to take extraordinary measures not to be turned away.

No one has to take extraordinary measures not to be turned away today. Very few people are being turned away. Obama followed immigration law and deported 4 million people over his two terms. Four million by eight is 500,000 per year? The Biden administration has only deported 59,000 people thus far. If this administration is allowed to continue its open border policies (which every Dem. candidate advocated for during the campaign, so I don't know why people object to it being acknowledged now), one third of the population in this country will consist of people here illegally by the end of his term.

They could have walked hundreds of miles through a desert (and lots of people have died doing that over the years), or they could pay to endure very dangerous conditions in a hot, crowded truck. What they couldn't do was count on being able to enter the U.S and reach their destination unimpeded, because, or so it seems to me, the border is not "open."

Not so. What they can count on today is being allowed into the country unimpeded, even assisted. Because the border is, practically speaking, open. That is why an unprecedented number of people, from countries all over the world, are getting themselves to South America and up to the U.S. Southern border. It is open. 

And then I would want to ask Gov. Abbott if he agrees with those definitions, and what he would have the federal government do that it's not already doing to stop unauthorized immigrants to reach "closed" status,

He would say what he just said on the radio in answer to that question: Reinstate the Trump policies, enforce immigration law.

And I forgive Gov. Abbot (whom I don't admire) for his silly inspection stunt, because Governors and the residents of their states are frustrated and furious that the federal government refuses to do it's duty and enforce the border. Governors will continue looking into ways they can legally defend their states, since the current admin. has no interest in doing so, although that will be tricky, because immigration is under federal control. But the ongoing process of facilitating flow and dispersing these illegal immigrants throughout the nation (so as to avoid any unpleasant optics like the 15,000 Haitians recently congregated under a border overpass, which DHS then made a no-fly zone for drones to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing these images) makes every U.S. town a border town. However, it's the border towns that have to deal with the threat of cartel violence. Were you aware that the Uvalde school that recently suffered the mass shooting had 48 emergency lock downs in one school year, because that town is on the cartel highway and droves of armed cartel members pass through there? As you probably know, fentanyl overdose has now surpassed traffic accident as the leading cause of death for 18-45 year olds in this country, seeing a 100% increase in the first year of this admin. The Biden admin. is essentially partnering with the cartels to traffic humans and fentanyl into this country.

[N.E. Brigand]

Maybe we should set some definitions, because I'm not sure what, in any practical way, a closed border would look like.

No one that I know of is talking about a 'closed' border.

This discussion started with Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, saying that dozens of illegal immigrants died in a truck because of Joe Biden's "open border policies." If Abbott would endorse "half open border policies," then it's on him to be more clear about that.

Edited to add: I'm going to respond at some later point more fully regarding U.S. immigration policy. I may do so in a separate thread; there probably is one already on the subject. It's likely to be a very long post. I agree that immigration policy is very messy. I don't think it's a strictly Republican vs. Democratic issue -- it's not one side applying the law and the other side ignoring it -- and I think that the previous administration in particular adopted a disgusting xenophobic approach that had little to do with the rule of law. But that argument will keep for now.

[Eldy]

If this administration is allowed to continue its open border policies (which every Dem. candidate advocated for during the campaign, so I don't know why people object to it being acknowledged now), one third of the population in this country will consist of people here illegally by the end of his term.

I'm gonna have to ask for a citation on this, since one-third of the population is presently ~110 million people, and the population of undocumented immigrants is in the 11–12 million range.

[River]

Are you conflating people entering illegally with asylum seekers? Seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, not a crime. You report to a border officer and tell them you're seeking asylum and a process starts. Part of the process is investigating the claim, but while you're in the process you stay in the country you sought asylum in unless it's deemed there's another place you can and should go that is just as safe. If your claim is deemed invalid, you get booted back to where you came from. If your claim is valid, you get immigration status. This happens all over the world (saw it happening at the Belgrade airport actually, because the Serbian border control directs asylum seekers to wait in cordoned off area of the passport control). The US, like other developed Western countries, is attractive to asylum seekers and many probably already have friends or relatives here. This is also common; the refugees that are still crossing Europe are following their social networks to places like Germany and Sweden. In the US, our asylum process is broken. It broke under the Trump Admin and the Biden Admin hasn't been able to fix it. I think we're also still holding people in Mexico, which, I'm sure, Mexico is utterly thrilled with.

I think, and I'd have to check, that the most common flavor of illegal immigrant remains the person who flew in on a tourist visa and never left. Some of them manage to acquire driver's licenses, even in places like Colorado that have been complying with the RealID program since its inception. Others are just completely without papers. It's a rough way to live, but, to these people, going back where they came from would be even worse.

[Cerin]

Eldy, I have no citation for you. I heard the proposition on TV, from a research group that I doubt would be regarded as legitimate here in any case.

I believe the 11-12 million number is the same one that was being put forward in the Obama era. No doubt the real number has risen considerably since then. Before Trump got the border under control, there were roughly 150,000 - 200,000 apprehendees per month. If one supposes that for every person caught, two more are not apprehended, that would have amounted to roughly 6 million people per year if Trump had not acted. There are many more coming now. Estimating the real number currently here to be at least 30 million, that would be 80 million needed over three years to equal 1/3 of the current population, or roughly 27 million per year. I don't consider that an impossible number, given the extraordinary incentive of an open invitation, and the slick distribution system the admin. and the NGOs have going. When asked recently to account for who and how many people they've distributed across the country, the admin. was unable to do so.

River the people coming here are economic migrants, not people fleeing persecution because of their identity. Coming here for a better life is not a legitimate claim of asylum. In any case, the Biden admin. has simply done away with the asylum request system. All backlogged requests are scheduled to be granted, and people currently coming are simply being rubber-stamped in, no judge required.

[River]

For reference, one third of the US population is ~110 million. The entire estimated population of Central America is ~184 million, the bulk of which (~129 million) are in Mexico. If you exclude Mexico that leaves ~55 million people. Is your unspecified source that you appear to take seriously truly claiming that entire nations are going to empty out and what is their basis for this claim?

[Cerin]

So far, there are 70 countries represented by the people coming in. People from all over the world are traveling to South America to gain access to the open U.S. border.

[River]

So which nations are emptying out into Mexico? And why would someone with the means to cross an ocean come to the Mexican border when the Canadian one is longer and even easier to cross? Back up your claims with some names and numbers because >110 million is A LOT. 1.1x10^8 in scientific notation. 110,000,000 if you like to look at zeros.

[Cerin]

So which nations are emptying out into Mexico? And why would someone with the means to cross an ocean come to the Mexican border when the Canadian one is longer and even easier to cross? Back up your claims with some names and numbers because >110 million is A LOT. 1.1x10^8 in scientific notation. 110,000,000 if you like to look at zeros.

I don't know which nations are represented in the influx, nor why people would choose to go to South America rather than Canada -- perhaps because there are no buses scheduled to arrive at the Canadian border to transport them into the country? The pipeline into America comes through the South. As far as names and numbers, I haven't any. This is the border coverage I see/hear on conservative media.

[River]

So you are willing to make bold claims without providing supporting data. Noted.

I suspect Canada being a better partner in general, and a destination for asylum seekers in its own right, has something to do with the (relative) lack of people and contraband crossing in from that direction. In some parts of New England that border is so porous Canadian and American first responders have mutual aid agreements. Mexico is happy to shift the blame on the US for their cartel problems because it means they don't have to take responsibility for their actions and inactions on the matter but the fact is these groups' activities aren't legal in Mexico either. I'm not sure why anyone in the US would be willing to accept that blame.

[Cerin]

So you are willing to make bold claims without providing supporting data. Noted.

I'm happy to withdraw the comment, and I actually question whether I should be discussing this at all since I have no citations to back up my claims. But I believe it's true that most Americans have no idea what's happening at the border, and that is alarming in itself, in a nation that is supposed to have a free press.

[River]

So you are willing to make bold claims without providing supporting data. Noted.

I'm happy to withdraw the comment, and I actually question whether I should be discussing this at all since I have no citations to back up my claims.

Obviously, it isn't my call to make, but I think that would be the most honest thing to do.

ETA: I know this is a casual form of communication. But if a poster makes a claim and can't or won't provide supporting information when asked, that's a problem.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

ETA: I know this is a casual form of communication. But if a poster makes a claim and can't or won't provide supporting information when asked, that's a problem.

Technically, that is covered in the "Guidelines for Political Discussions" in this forum, specifically:

5. Avoid making assertions of fact without backing them up with links to a credible source. If your source is a left-wing or right-wing ideological site, or otherwise coming from a particular point of view, don't try to obfuscate that fact.

In practice, however, that is a difficult guideline to enforce because the boundary between fact and opinion can be sketchy, and like everyone else, I have my own biases that come into play. So other than in the most blatant cases, I tend to try not to say anything.

[Frelga]

Personally, I try to provide a source to every statement I present as fact unless it's general knowledge (covid is contagious, putin хуйло) or easily googled by anyone who doesn't want to take my word (covid cases are rising in California). I find this to be a good practice, not only for having a productive discussion but for my education.

I'm not suggesting any kind of formal guidelines, and there are many posters whom I am happy to take at their word in their area of expertise. But if someone were to make an extraordinary claim (there are 0 covid cases in the US today), I would certainly like to see some very solid evidence before I took it seriously.

[N.E. Brigand]

NBC's Ben Collins explains that while the man who shot dozens of people at a parade, killing six, from a rooftop in HIghland Park, Illinois yesterday appears to be a fan of Donald Trump, the problem is deeper than that. The killer was a regular participant in "accelerationist" online communities. Those groups, while frequently having a substantial far right and white supremacist component, are not politically rigid and above all else want to bring about civil war and chaos. To them, Trump is often seen as just a means to that end.

[RoseMorninStar]

Isn't that Steve Bannon's thing? Burn it all to the ground? Anarchy?

[Eldy]

I think most people who endorse accelerationism as a tactic have some particular ideological goal in mind, whether that's left-wing and anti-capitalist, or right-wing and pro-capitalist. (There's also "Unconditional Accelerationism," which as far as I can tell is more about engaging in obscure philosophical debates than advocating for anything concrete.) Collins is describing something different: online subcultures which borrow some of the aesthetic of political movements, but are really just flailing expressions of despair and anger and pain.

This Twitter thread refers to the layers of obfuscating jokes and irony that characterize the spaces the shooter apparently participated in. That is/was a common feature of the alt-right: the style guide of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer infamously instructed writers, "The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not. This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes. But that’s neither here nor there." The point people seem to be making on Twitter is that the Highland Park shooter came up in communities which have passed a tipping point, where there are so many layers of irony that there's not actually anything beneath them anymore. Collins referred to doomerism and blackpilling, which are both essentialist defeatist and fatalist concepts, arguing that there is no possible solution to whatever problem people were initially concerned about (human extinction, not having a girlfriend, etc), and that we should give up looking for one.

I'd argue this has more in common with clinical depression than political ideology, and I think Collins has a point that the normal discourse about political extremism isn't necessarily able to account for them. But I'm not sure I'd agree with him that these groups have "larger goals" beyond feeling momentarily visible and purposeful by virtue of having committed violent acts, in contrast to the common depression experience of feeling invisible and purposeless. Which is (I hope obviously) not to say that any but a tiny minority of depressed people go this route.

[N.E. Brigand]

The U.S. employment report for June is out with good news.

Predictions had been that the report would find 265,000 jobs were added last month. The actual number was 372,000.

Employment in the manufacturing sector has now returned to pre-pandemic levels.

And the unemployment rate stays at 3.6%.

Even so, on TV today I saw reports saw this was a problem, because more people working might result in higher inflation.