Ron DeSantis sends two planes of illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard

[Horseman 2,723]

30 minutes ago, dogcows said:

There’s a lot to unpack here.. too much for me to go through it all. I will just say I agree that the immigration situation is not good. But it will take Congressional action to fix it.

I will also add that I believe some of the reasoning used here has too much reliance on notions of human nature or common sense. Data is a much better measure, because it turns out a lot of things that seem intuitive to us turn out to be counterintuitive. That human flaw goes way back to the time of Galileo (and before) when people assumed heavier objects would fall faster than lighter ones.

As for Democrats losing? It’s looking like they keep the Senate in 2022. And a lot of things can happen between now and 2024, so who knows what will happen then?

The data doesn't lie.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters

Just in case you're chart challenged, Biden is responsible for every data point above 150K.  Trump's last year, all but one data point is below 50K.  The illegal migrant invasion is 4x as bad under the Biden administration.  

[Hardcore troubadour 16,057]

Obama says if you’re against illegal immigration you’re a racist.  This is the guy that was called the deporter in chief. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

dogcows is a troll.  it accomplishes nothing talking to him.  have you ever had a discussion with dogcows and he has made a single conession on anything?  no.  and it never will happen.  waste of time.

[dogcows 1,264]

20 minutes ago, Horseman said:

The data doesn't lie.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters

Just in case you're chart challenged, Biden is responsible for every data point above 150K.  Trump's last year, all but one data point is below 50K.  The illegal migrant invasion is 4x as bad under the Biden administration.  

It’s fair to say it’s happening under Biden’s watch. But it’s also fair to say that the pandemic drastically lowered border crossings, deflating the numbers during Trump’s last year. The mass exodus from Venezuela is also a huge contributor to the numbers today, and wasn’t this big of a problem before 2021.

Also keep in mind that these numbers are apprehensions. This year, half of them resulted in immediate expulsions.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/title-8-and-title-42-statistics

And in 2021, of 1.6 million apprehensions, 1 million were immediately sent away.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/title-8-and-title-42-statistics

Geopolitical factors outside of our control seem to be the biggest driver of increased numbers at the border. Biden could do better, but he removed 2/3 of crossers in 2021 and 1/2 this year. The main reason for that percentage going down in 2022 is more Venezuelans, for whom we don’t have an agreement with Mexico to legally send them back.

I’m not going to say Biden’s doing a great job handling this, but I’m also not going to engage in the hyperbole that a 2x increase in crossings compared to 2019 is an “invasion” especially when a majority of people are being turned back immediately.

Unless Congress acts, this will be a problem for every president going forward, regardless of their party.

[dogcows 1,264]

9 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

dogcows is a troll.  it accomplishes nothing talking to him.  have you ever had a discussion with dogcows and he has made a single conession on anything?  no.  and it never will happen.  waste of time.

I conceded that the Chargers suffered some costly injuries this season…

[Masshole 642]

5 hours ago, dogcows said:

Byron York is an idiot. Listening to him is the opposite of education.

He sources and references everything he says in that podcast.   You can make a lot criticism of York, but "idiot" isn't really hitting the target. . .

[Horseman 2,723]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

It’s fair to say it’s happening under Biden’s watch. But it’s also fair to say that the pandemic drastically lowered border crossings, deflating the numbers during Trump’s last year. 

No it didn’t. Remain in Mexico, closing the wall and enforcing the law took the numbers down. The spike in 2019 was when Remain in Mexico went through the courts. You don’t get to blame Covid in 2020 when Covid was still here in 2021. 
 

There is one major difference - Biden. His EO that took Remain in Mexico away and opened the walls.   

[Shooter McGavin 618]

There was no EO to get rid of remain in Mexico or to open any walls.

[dogcows 1,264]

29 minutes ago, Masshole said:

He sources and references everything he says in that podcast.   You can make a lot criticism of York, but "idiot" isn't really hitting the target. . .

I remember him defending GW Bush and blaming the media for a conspiracy against him. I just checked out his page on the Examiner and he hasn’t evolved much since then.

On this specific issue, he attempts to frame things in his way, by saying anybody crossing the border somewhere other than official checkpoints is automatically breaking the law. He then states they use asylum as a defense for that crime. So he claims he is making a legal argument. But there’s a problem right away.

When it comes to the law, people are considered innocent of crimes until proven guilty. One can use asylum as an affirmative defense for crossing somewhere other than an official checkpoint. They bolster such a case by immediately turning themselves in.

He actually kind of gets to this point on his own. Then, having painted himself into a corner, he deflects by saying “lots of people are denied asylum” as if that matters. By deflecting, he already admits he’s lost the argument to himself. If their asylum case is still active, they have not been convicted of any crime… which is absolutely the case with the migrants he specifically addresses.

Here’s a quick comparison to another law to prove the point. Consider somebody shooting a home invader in self defense. Using York’s argument, the shooter is automatically guilty, but even if the jury finds them innocent by reason of self defense, in York’s mind they are still guilty. That’s not how it works, no matter how badly York wants it to.

[Hardcore troubadour 16,057]

27 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

There was no EO to get rid of remain in Mexico or to open any walls.

Oh, so it’s still in place? 

[dogcows 1,264]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Oh, so it’s still in place? 

“Remain in Mexico” and “Title 42” are different things. The former was just ended in August, but only affects a small percentage of migrants (about 20,000 a year). That program required some people to wait in Mexico for their court dates. Title 42 is turning back 50% or more of migrants immediately at the border without a chance for any asylum claim. It’s still in effect. But it cannot be used for Venezuelans because we don’t have diplomatic relations with Venezuela and therefore can’t send them back there.

Here’s a pretty good explanation of Title 42 and Venezuela:

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/el-paso-struggles-to-keep-up-with-venezuelan-migrants-5-key-things-to-know/ar-AA11WqxX

[TimHauck 3,437]

2 hours ago, Horseman said:

No it didn’t. Remain in Mexico, closing the wall and enforcing the law took the numbers down. The spike in 2019 was when Remain in Mexico went through the courts. You don’t get to blame Covid in 2020 when Covid was still here in 2021. 
 

There is one major difference - Biden. His EO that took Remain in Mexico away and opened the walls.   

It has definitely gotten worse under Biden, but it’s fair to say the pandemic deflated the numbers in 2020.   That’s when the pandemic restrictions were, there were few for most of 2021.  If anything the decline in 2020 from Covid restrictions inflated 2021…no excuse for 2022 though. 
 

[craftsman 1,045]

14 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

It has definitely gotten worse under Biden.
 

Very true.

[RLLD 4,283]

18 hours ago, dogcows said:

There’s a lot to unpack here.. too much for me to go through it all. I will just say I agree that the immigration situation is not good. But it will take Congressional action to fix it.

I will also add that I believe some of the reasoning used here has too much reliance on notions of human nature or common sense. Data is a much better measure, because it turns out a lot of things that seem intuitive to us turn out to be counterintuitive. That human flaw goes way back to the time of Galileo (and before) when people assumed heavier objects would fall faster than lighter ones.

As for Democrats losing? It’s looking like they keep the Senate in 2022. And a lot of things can happen between now and 2024, so who knows what will happen then?

Fair enough.  Good stuff.  Hopefully there is some solution that can benefit as many as possible  

[Reality 3,139]

I mean... Focking wow.

 

[Masshole 642]

10 minutes ago, Reality said:

I mean... Focking wow.

 

Yah saw that one.     

I know it gets old playing this game all the time, but I'm going to bite anyway:    "Imagine that it had been a republican who said this. . ."    

[craftsman 1,045]

2 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Yah saw that one.     

I know it gets old playing this game all the time, but I'm going to bite anyway:    "Imagine that it had been a republican who said this. . ."    

Liberals would be calling the farmers slaves. 

[Masshole 642]

On 9/27/2022 at 5:43 PM, dogcows said:

This is a straight up lie. I scrubbed through the podcast and it specifically mentions multiple times that it was a scam involving African immigrants. (about 20 minutes in if you care to listen)

Might want to check who you follow on Twitter. This particular gummy bear appears to be -flavored. Pretty ironic that his Twitter description includes this gem: “I value intellectual honesty.” 

Took me a bit to get back to this.   When you posted I thought "did I not hear that?"   But Occam's razor - the simplest answer is usually right.   No I didn't make a mistake - You are a fraud.    They never said anything about the ownership being African immigrants, just that many of their "customers" were.   They never once say who the owners of the quarter of a billion dollar scam are, they mention 1 name and it's not even an African sounding one and give no other details about the ownership/leadership of Feeding our Future.   

Here's the only parts of the transcript of the podcast where they mention Africans and Feeding our Future at all.    Show me where is the "straight up lie" that the NYT never mentioned the race/background of the scammers?  

"But then the pandemic hits. And something unusual happens. Feeding Our Future, this tiny little operation starts to grow and grow and grow rapidly. They start adding in new sites, bringing in new people, and saying, look at all these new people we’ve recruited to feed kids. Look at all these new kids we found to feed. So in one year, they go from supervising the feeding of 4,000 kids to 400,000.

What they said was that they had partnered with people from Minnesota’s very large community of East African immigrants. And they had found people in that community. There were a lot of kids out there that had not been served before. But also, there was a specific kind of food that their places offered that was familiar and culturally appropriate to people from Ethiopia or Somalia or Kenya. And so in some cases, their operations were claiming to be feeding far more children than even lived in the zip code that they were in. And when people ask questions about that, they would say, well, yeah, people are driving in from all over because we have the food they want, and they’re not getting it where they live.

And Feeding Our Future responds very aggressively. They sue. They sue the state, saying, you have denied us our right to serve these kids. Children are starving because of you. They accused the state of being racially discriminatory, saying that because we serve East African immigrants, because many of our vendors are East African immigrants, there’s racial animus behind this decision."
 

 

[dogcows 1,264]

1 hour ago, Masshole said:

Took me a bit to get back to this.   When you posted I thought "did I not hear that?"   But Occam's razor - the simplest answer is usually right.   No I didn't make a mistake - You are a fraud.    They never said anything about the ownership being African immigrants, just that many of their "customers" were.   They never once say who the owners of the quarter of a billion dollar scam are, they mention 1 name and it's not even an African sounding one and give no other details about the ownership/leadership of Feeding our Future.   

Here's the only parts of the transcript of the podcast where they mention Africans and Feeding our Future at all.    Show me where is the "straight up lie" that the NYT never mentioned the race/background of the scammers?  

"But then the pandemic hits. And something unusual happens. Feeding Our Future, this tiny little operation starts to grow and grow and grow rapidly. They start adding in new sites, bringing in new people, and saying, look at all these new people we’ve recruited to feed kids. Look at all these new kids we found to feed. So in one year, they go from supervising the feeding of 4,000 kids to 400,000.

What they said was that they had partnered with people from Minnesota’s very large community of East African immigrants. And they had found people in that community. There were a lot of kids out there that had not been served before. But also, there was a specific kind of food that their places offered that was familiar and culturally appropriate to people from Ethiopia or Somalia or Kenya. And so in some cases, their operations were claiming to be feeding far more children than even lived in the zip code that they were in. And when people ask questions about that, they would say, well, yeah, people are driving in from all over because we have the food they want, and they’re not getting it where they live.

And Feeding Our Future responds very aggressively. They sue. They sue the state, saying, you have denied us our right to serve these kids. Children are starving because of you. They accused the state of being racially discriminatory, saying that because we serve East African immigrants, because many of our vendors are East African immigrants, there’s racial animus behind this decision."
 

 

Read the 2nd last paragraph, first sentence. You do understand what “partnered with” means, correct?  The last paragraph mentions “many of our vendors are East African…” - it is these vendors that are facing charges.

I get it. This Twitter user wanted the story to be “Africans bad!” And to focus mainly on the nationality of the perpetrators. Since it didn’t focus on it strongly enough for him, he was angry. But as for the gummy bear’s claim?

Since the charity doesn’t have an “owner” per se, the closest thing to that is the founder and chairwoman of the organization, Aimee Bock - who is not of African descent. The “vendors” and people she “partnered with” are. Both things are specifically mentioned in the podcast. The tweeted claim is therefore false.