What happened to the immigration thread?

[defixione]

Why does Abbott even care? He's turned into an immigrant trafficker so they are of no concern to him.

[JKLivin]

Why does Abbott even care? He's turned into an immigrant trafficker so they are of no concern to him.

NY finally said “Uncle” and admitted they can’t take anymore immigrants from Texas. Where else can he send them? Martha’s Vineyard?

[zsn]

Why does Abbott even care? He's turned into an immigrant trafficker so they are of no concern to him.

NY finally said “Uncle” and admitted they can’t take anymore immigrants from Texas. Where else can he send them? Martha’s Vineyard?

Here’s a novel idea. Why doesn’t he punish those who break the law by hiring unauthorized workers?

Oh wait, because many of them are white and the people will run out of cheap labor to exploit.

[Shirley]

Why does Abbott even care? He's turned into an immigrant trafficker so they are of no concern to him.

NY finally said “Uncle” and admitted they can’t take anymore immigrants from Texas. Where else can he send them? Martha’s Vineyard?

Here’s a novel idea. Why doesn’t he punish those who break the law by hiring unauthorized workers?

Oh wait, because many of them are white and the people will run out of cheap labor to exploit.

As long as it serves to keep their bigoted cult en fuego, and furnishes a steady stream of other people willing to work for slave wages thereby lowering the wages of Americans of modest means, it's difficult to envision any circumstance that would motivate the party of white nationalism to act in good faith to reach a compromise on a solution.

Feel free to prove me wrong, party of Lincoln...

[JKLivin]

Why does Abbott even care? He's turned into an immigrant trafficker so they are of no concern to him.

NY finally said “Uncle” and admitted they can’t take anymore immigrants from Texas. Where else can he send them? Martha’s Vineyard?

Here’s a novel idea. Why doesn’t he punish those who break the law by hiring unauthorized workers?

Oh wait, because many of them are white and the people will run out of cheap labor to exploit.

FWIW, I agree that there should be stiff penalties in place for hiring illegals. I’m also for controlling what we can right now.

[Overlander]

So funny how these “ send ‘em back where they come” morons are the ones bitching the loudest about how expensive things have gotten.

The Dumbfuck in Charge started an immigration war…AND a trade war with the country that we built up to be a world leader in manufacturing.

Who couldn’t have seen this coming from miles away?

[zsn]

NY finally said “Uncle” and admitted they can’t take anymore immigrants from Texas. Where else can he send them? Martha’s Vineyard?

Here’s a novel idea. Why doesn’t he punish those who break the law by hiring unauthorized workers?

Oh wait, because many of them are white and the people will run out of cheap labor to exploit.

FWIW, I agree that there should be stiff penalties in place for hiring illegals. I’m also for controlling what we can right now.

You just proved to me that you have no clue about this stuff and you’re just parroting talking points.

There’s already penalties (stiff lies in the eyes of the beholder) for hiring undocumented workers. They range from $500-5000 based on the circumstances and can include loss of business license.

There’s no “we need stiff penalties” - and we (as in Abbott) can control it RIGHT NOW, if he chooses. Instead of grandstanding and doing political stunts.

[KUTradition]

but those stunts give the psychs and randys chubbies

[JKLivin]

Here’s a novel idea. Why doesn’t he punish those who break the law by hiring unauthorized workers?

Oh wait, because many of them are white and the people will run out of cheap labor to exploit.

FWIW, I agree that there should be stiff penalties in place for hiring illegals. I’m also for controlling what we can right now.

You just proved to me that you have no clue about this stuff and you’re just parroting talking points.

There’s already penalties (stiff lies in the eyes of the beholder) for hiring undocumented workers. They range from $500-5000 based on the circumstances and can include loss of business license.

There’s no “we need stiff penalties” - and we (as in Abbott) can control it RIGHT NOW, if he chooses. Instead of grandstanding and doing political stunts.

If they’re not being enforced, they’re not really in place. It’s kind of like the highways in Michigan. The posted speed limit is 70, but everyone is going 85 and no one is getting pulled over. Is it technically 70? Sure. But it has no impact on what is actually going on. I’d argue the same is happening nationwide with employment practices. The odd place gets raided and a slap on the wrist, but not enough to change anything. I think Abbott is a part of that problem, but it is going to take a national initiative to make a measurable difference.

[KUTradition]

self-contradiction is fun

[JKLivin]

self-contradiction is fun

There's no self-contradiction; just a reading comprehension problem.

[jfish26]

FWIW, I agree that there should be stiff penalties in place for hiring illegals. I’m also for controlling what we can right now.

You just proved to me that you have no clue about this stuff and you’re just parroting talking points.

There’s already penalties (stiff lies in the eyes of the beholder) for hiring undocumented workers. They range from $500-5000 based on the circumstances and can include loss of business license.

There’s no “we need stiff penalties” - and we (as in Abbott) can control it RIGHT NOW, if he chooses. Instead of grandstanding and doing political stunts.

If they’re not being enforced, they’re not really in place. It’s kind of like the highways in Michigan. The posted speed limit is 70, but everyone is going 85 and no one is getting pulled over. Is it technically 70? Sure. But it has no impact on what is actually going on. I’d argue the same is happening nationwide with employment practices. The odd place gets raided and a slap on the wrist, but not enough to change anything. I think Abbott is a part of that problem, but it is going to take a national initiative to make a measurable difference.

I’m maybe more of a pragmatist than anything else. A “national initiative” is probably right (devil’s in the details of course).

It probably needs to start with some assumptions, one of which is that legal immigration must increase in order for enhanced enforcement to be practicable and desirable; if a speed limit somewhere is too low, what you’d do is raise the speed limit (creating a reasonable compliance anchor) AND increase penalties for speeding.

[zsn]

Going with your example, the current situation would be analogous to the Governor of Michigan going after tire companies for enabling speeding rather than just putting cops every two miles and start pulling people over. And what fish says.

I’ve said this before- it’s not that we can’t solve this problem. It’s because powerful people don’t want to, enabled by the likes of Abbott and DeSantis. Because they will have to find another issue to demagogue. Bread and circuses.

[Shirley]

Going with your example, the current situation would be analogous to the Governor of Michigan going after tire companies for enabling speeding rather than just putting cops every two miles and start pulling people over. And what fish says.

I’ve said this before- it’s not that we can’t solve this problem. It’s because powerful people don’t want to, enabled by the likes of Abbott and DeSantis. Because they will have to find another issue to demagogue. Bread and circuses.

^^^

As long as it serves to keep their bigoted cult en fuego, and furnishes a steady stream of other people willing to work for slave wages thereby lowering the wages of Americans of modest means, it's difficult to envision any circumstance that would motivate the party of white nationalism to act in good faith to reach a compromise on a solution.

Feel free to prove me wrong, party of Lincoln...

[twocoach]

Here’s a novel idea. Why doesn’t he punish those who break the law by hiring unauthorized workers?

Oh wait, because many of them are white and the people will run out of cheap labor to exploit.

FWIW, I agree that there should be stiff penalties in place for hiring illegals. I’m also for controlling what we can right now.

You just proved to me that you have no clue about this stuff and you’re just parroting talking points.

There’s already penalties (stiff lies in the eyes of the beholder) for hiring undocumented workers. They range from $500-5000 based on the circumstances and can include loss of business license.

There’s no “we need stiff penalties” - and we (as in Abbott) can control it RIGHT NOW, if he chooses. Instead of grandstanding and doing political stunts.

This is a few years old but highlights what we're talking about. Lots of efforts to punish immigrants but very little effort to punish big dollar donors. Oops I mean, corporations who employ undocumented workers.
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/559/

[JKLivin]

You just proved to me that you have no clue about this stuff and you’re just parroting talking points.

There’s already penalties (stiff lies in the eyes of the beholder) for hiring undocumented workers. They range from $500-5000 based on the circumstances and can include loss of business license.

There’s no “we need stiff penalties” - and we (as in Abbott) can control it RIGHT NOW, if he chooses. Instead of grandstanding and doing political stunts.

If they’re not being enforced, they’re not really in place. It’s kind of like the highways in Michigan. The posted speed limit is 70, but everyone is going 85 and no one is getting pulled over. Is it technically 70? Sure. But it has no impact on what is actually going on. I’d argue the same is happening nationwide with employment practices. The odd place gets raided and a slap on the wrist, but not enough to change anything. I think Abbott is a part of that problem, but it is going to take a national initiative to make a measurable difference.

I’m maybe more of a pragmatist than anything else. A “national initiative” is probably right (devil’s in the details of course).

It probably needs to start with some assumptions, one of which is that legal immigration must increase in order for enhanced enforcement to be practicable and desirable; if a speed limit somewhere is too low, what you’d do is raise the speed limit (creating a reasonable compliance anchor) AND increase penalties for speeding.

So, here's a pragmatist's dilemma: The governor of Texas enforces the laws on the books for hiring illegals, but it doesn't impact the flow of illegals over the Texas border. Why? Because the illegals still come into the state, but move through it to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. where the laws are not being enforced. It solves nothing for Texas until the whole national system disincentivizes crossing over illegally, so Abbott does the next most effective thing. Does it win him brownie points with voters? Sure. Is it the best he can do until we elect a POTUS who takes illegal immigration seriously? Unfortunately.

[twocoach]

If they’re not being enforced, they’re not really in place. It’s kind of like the highways in Michigan. The posted speed limit is 70, but everyone is going 85 and no one is getting pulled over. Is it technically 70? Sure. But it has no impact on what is actually going on. I’d argue the same is happening nationwide with employment practices. The odd place gets raided and a slap on the wrist, but not enough to change anything. I think Abbott is a part of that problem, but it is going to take a national initiative to make a measurable difference.

I’m maybe more of a pragmatist than anything else. A “national initiative” is probably right (devil’s in the details of course).

It probably needs to start with some assumptions, one of which is that legal immigration must increase in order for enhanced enforcement to be practicable and desirable; if a speed limit somewhere is too low, what you’d do is raise the speed limit (creating a reasonable compliance anchor) AND increase penalties for speeding.

So, here's a pragmatist's dilemma: The governor of Texas enforces the laws on the books for hiring illegals, but it doesn't impact the flow of illegals over the Texas border. Why? Because the illegals still come into the state, but move through it to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. where the laws are not being enforced. It solves nothing for Texas until the whole national system disincentivizes crossing over illegally, so Abbott does the next most effective thing. Does it win him brownie points with voters? Sure. Is it the best he can do until we elect a POTUS who takes illegal immigration seriously? Unfortunately.

Let's start with "The governor of Texas enforces the laws on the books for hiring illegals, but it doesn't impact the flow of illegals over the Texas border. "

PROVE that this is what happens before you roll that avalanche of assumptions down the mountain behind it. They are not adequately enforcing the laws on the books for hiring illegals. This has been proven over and over and over. You're once again starting with a false assumption as well as working backwards in your logic. Enforce the damn laws.

And if the governors of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi are to blame for the continued flow of illegals over the border then you just answered your question of "where do you recommend that Abbott send these illegals?" It's as if shipping them to Democrat-run cities is just a political stunt and not a "you're causing the problem, you deal with the results of the problem" action.

[JKLivin]

I’m maybe more of a pragmatist than anything else. A “national initiative” is probably right (devil’s in the details of course).

It probably needs to start with some assumptions, one of which is that legal immigration must increase in order for enhanced enforcement to be practicable and desirable; if a speed limit somewhere is too low, what you’d do is raise the speed limit (creating a reasonable compliance anchor) AND increase penalties for speeding.

So, here's a pragmatist's dilemma: The governor of Texas enforces the laws on the books for hiring illegals, but it doesn't impact the flow of illegals over the Texas border. Why? Because the illegals still come into the state, but move through it to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. where the laws are not being enforced. It solves nothing for Texas until the whole national system disincentivizes crossing over illegally, so Abbott does the next most effective thing. Does it win him brownie points with voters? Sure. Is it the best he can do until we elect a POTUS who takes illegal immigration seriously? Unfortunately.

Let's start with "The governor of Texas enforces the laws on the books for hiring illegals, but it doesn't impact the flow of illegals over the Texas border. "

PROVE that this is what happens before you roll that avalanche of assumptions down the mountain behind it. They are not adequately enforcing the laws on the books for hiring illegals. This has been proven over and over and over. You're once again starting with a false assumption as well as working backwards in your logic. Enforce the damn laws.

And if the governors of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi are to blame for the continued flow of illegals over the border then you just answered your question of "where do you recommend that Abbott send these illegals?" It's as if shipping them to Democrat-run cities is just a political stunt and not a "you're causing the problem, you deal with the results of the problem" action.

That's not what I was trying to say. I meant that the Governor is responsible for enforcement. Obviously he is not doing so, for the reasons that followed. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not a good multitasker.

To your second point, of course it is a publicity stunt. How else to draw attention than to send a bunch of illegals to disrupt the idylls of the elite in Martha's Vineyard? Is anyone going to pay attention if a busload of illegals rolls into Shawnee, OK or Possum Holler, AR? Nope. It's not rocket science.

[twocoach]

So, here's a pragmatist's dilemma: The governor of Texas enforces the laws on the books for hiring illegals, but it doesn't impact the flow of illegals over the Texas border. Why? Because the illegals still come into the state, but move through it to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. where the laws are not being enforced. It solves nothing for Texas until the whole national system disincentivizes crossing over illegally, so Abbott does the next most effective thing. Does it win him brownie points with voters? Sure. Is it the best he can do until we elect a POTUS who takes illegal immigration seriously? Unfortunately.

Let's start with "The governor of Texas enforces the laws on the books for hiring illegals, but it doesn't impact the flow of illegals over the Texas border. "

PROVE that this is what happens before you roll that avalanche of assumptions down the mountain behind it. They are not adequately enforcing the laws on the books for hiring illegals. This has been proven over and over and over. You're once again starting with a false assumption as well as working backwards in your logic. Enforce the damn laws.

And if the governors of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi are to blame for the continued flow of illegals over the border then you just answered your question of "where do you recommend that Abbott send these illegals?" It's as if shipping them to Democrat-run cities is just a political stunt and not a "you're causing the problem, you deal with the results of the problem" action.

That's not what I was trying to say. I meant that the Governor is responsible for enforcement. Obviously he is not doing so, for the reasons that followed. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not a good multitasker.

To your second point, of course it is a publicity stunt. How else to draw attention than to send a bunch of illegals to disrupt the idylls of the elite in Martha's Vineyard? Is anyone going to pay attention if a busload of illegals rolls into Shawnee, OK or Possum Holler, AR? Nope. It's not rocket science.

Maybe his constituents would be better off if he addressed the problem and enforced the laws in his state instead of doing publicity stunts. Maybe he could spend the money spent on those publicity stunts on ramping up enforcement of ALL sides of the immigration issue within his state instead of turning a blind eye to one of the most serious parts of the problem so that he can get tax revenue and campaign contributions from the companies benefitting from undocumented workers in his state.

Do something productive and helpful instead of doing something because it is self-serving.

[jfish26]

So, here's a pragmatist's dilemma: The governor of Texas enforces the laws on the books for hiring illegals, but it doesn't impact the flow of illegals over the Texas border. Why? Because the illegals still come into the state, but move through it to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. where the laws are not being enforced. It solves nothing for Texas until the whole national system disincentivizes crossing over illegally, so Abbott does the next most effective thing. Does it win him brownie points with voters? Sure. Is it the best he can do until we elect a POTUS who takes illegal immigration seriously? Unfortunately.

Let's start with "The governor of Texas enforces the laws on the books for hiring illegals, but it doesn't impact the flow of illegals over the Texas border. "

PROVE that this is what happens before you roll that avalanche of assumptions down the mountain behind it. They are not adequately enforcing the laws on the books for hiring illegals. This has been proven over and over and over. You're once again starting with a false assumption as well as working backwards in your logic. Enforce the damn laws.

And if the governors of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi are to blame for the continued flow of illegals over the border then you just answered your question of "where do you recommend that Abbott send these illegals?" It's as if shipping them to Democrat-run cities is just a political stunt and not a "you're causing the problem, you deal with the results of the problem" action.

That's not what I was trying to say. I meant that the Governor is responsible for enforcement. Obviously he is not doing so, for the reasons that followed. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not a good multitasker.

To your second point, of course it is a publicity stunt. How else to draw attention than to send a bunch of illegals to disrupt the idylls of the elite in Martha's Vineyard? Is anyone going to pay attention if a busload of illegals rolls into Shawnee, OK or Possum Holler, AR? Nope. It's not rocket science.

This assumes that what attention is being drawn to, is the actual issue.

I do not think that’s the case.