Abbott is trying to kill or injure illegal immigrants coming to Texas

Again, really different as far as policy is concerned largely because of geography. There's a whole lot of green between Venezuela and the US, which presumably leaves plenty more alternative channels for safety and undermines the notion that they chose the US exclusively for persecution reasons. It also leaves more humane alternatives for the US because the choices aren't simply "take them in or let them die."

You're talking to a guy who generally supports the Venezuelans fleeing Maduro. I can relate to them through my family. But you're acting like there is a double standard rooted in bias favoring the Cubans over the Venezuelans. That is a narrative that you are drawing which is not supported by evidence. The policy is different because relevant circumstances are different, not because "Cubans good, Venezuelans bad."

 

Exactly, but it seems like you're just poo-pooing geographic proximity as this irrelevant point when it's incredibly relevant.

 

You pulled the $5 a week out of your ass and are talking out of your ass in suggesting that this will somehow pay for itself.

It's a gamble. You think it's a good risk to just leave it alone, I don't.

 

Cubans bitching about immigration is the height of hypocrisy

 

Not all immigration is the same. If it were, we wouldn't have borders.

 

Texas DPS launches probe amid allegations troopers were told to push back migrant children into Rio Grande - ABC News (go.com)

Asked about the allegations that Texas National Guard soldiers pushed back migrants into the Rio Grande, the Texas Military Department's office of public affairs told ABC News in a statement on Tuesday that "there is no order or directive instructing Service Members to push illegal immigrants back into the river or deny them drinking water."

"Texas is deploying every tool and strategy to deter and repel illegal crossings between ports of entry as President Biden's dangerous open border policies entice migrants from over 150 countries to risk their lives entering the country illegally," Andrew Mahaleris, press secretary for Abbott's office told ABC News in a statement on Tuesday. "The absence of razor wire and other deterrence strategies encourages migrants to make unsafe and illegal crossings between ports of entry, while making the job of Texas National Guard soldiers and DPS troopers more dangerous and difficult. President Biden has unleashed a chaos on the border that's unsustainable, and we have a constitutional duty to respond to this unprecedented crisis."

 

Yes, I pulled the $5/week out my ass. To prove a point that we could raise a lot of money from these immigrants that will help pay for the program. Never stated it would pay for itself, but it could. And again, $5/week isn't a big ask for people who are supposed to be working.

And I've also listed several benefits of the plan beyond the monies raised. Like allowing us to vet who is here, who is coming, and betting knowing who is here. It would likely take less resources to vet new incoming immigrants in processing centers, potentially freeing up BP agents to patrol the border, looking for a smaller amount of people, who wouldn't be crossing legally.

So what's your plan? Spend more money on solutions proven not to work?

 

I don't think they "don't work," they just don't perfectly solve the problem.

I'm yet to hear any solution that "works" as in "foolproof."

 

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I never said an expanded guest worker programs solves all the problems. But it's certainly a much better solution than anything else we've tried, which has mostly been throw money at the problem and watch it fly out the window.

 

Seems a sizeable majority would agree that we need younger workers, particularly for certain jobs; that we should welcome refugees with meritorious asylum claims; and that we have to have rules and can't just let everyone who would prefer to live here come and stay forever. I don't have the answers, but this is a good example IMO that not everything is a zero-sum game. Working to improve the lives and opportunities of folks struggling with poverty and violence in other countries benefits both sides. Efforts to de-humanize people makes both sides less safe. There have to be some middle ground, practical things we can do.

 

My answer is generally "yes."

Why not both guest-worker and secure the border? lol. I'd need to know details of the guest-worker program, but I can see plenty of cases where it can work.

And if it's a convenient way of bringing people who would be here anyways into the system so they can pay more into it, even better.

What I don't want is people coming here strictly for economic reasons basically cutting the line and attaining full citizenship just because they went through the Southern border. That would be bad policy, but I don't think that's what you're suggesting. The big trick with your way is effectively keeping tabs on the people part of the program so Uncle Sam knows where they are. If they disappear after two seconds, the policy accomplished nothing.

 

Total nonsense from both of you. Par for the course tho. .

 

So your argument is take Cubans, because they live on an island near by, but not Venezuelans because they are farther away and there are countries in between? So do you support taking in Haitians, if there is evidence that they were suffering political persecution?

 

Nah, you ignored me like a child because you could dish it out but couldn't take it.

You want to be that way, go sit at the kid's table with JJ.

 

His argument is to take Cubans because he's a Cuban-American. Let's be real, if people wanted to be awful then like so many are now, they could have just demanded that the Cubans go to the Bahamas, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, or Mexico instead of allowing them to stay here.

But we didn't. And it's good we didn't. I'm happy the Cubans escaped and came here. But I sure wish those who benefitted from our permissive immigration polices would want to extend that grace to others in similar conditions.

 

he made a counterpoint and asked a question without attacking. But because he disagreed with you or you don’t have a retort you attack him personally .

 

No, I’m not responding to him as such because he specifically placed me on ignore because he couldn’t talk with me. He could dish it out but couldn’t take it.

Now he wants to talk again.

I don’t have to play ball with anybody who took their ball and went home last time we played and put me on ignore.

 

i’m trying to understand the point you’re trying to make. This thread is about the governor of Texas enforcing the laws and trying to keep people out of the country, whom you describe as “illegal.” And you think he should be going to hell?

what solution are you proposing to deal with these “illegal” people entering our country unlawfully?

 

I think your answer is phenomenal, and you obviously are a very caring individual. I would like to help you in your noble endeavors. When you travel to these South American countries to help these poor people, where did you stay? I would like to follow in your footsteps and put my money where our mouth is, but I have never traveled to any of these poor countries in South America and therefore don’t really know where to start. Can you post some information on here on how to get involved in this? Maybe on your next mission to Guatemala or Honduras you can post the information here so some of us who are more fortunate can join you down there to help these poor folks. Thanks and God Bless you.

 

When people resort to repetitive name calling, sometimes I put them on ignore for a while. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt.