US Politics: Bike tricks

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
1. Ships immigrants to 'lawyer island'
2. Immigrants get lawyered up

businessinsider.com/florida-officials-made-fake-brochures-for-migrants-lawsuit-ron-desantis-2022-9?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Florida officials made fake 'official-looking' brochure advertising refugee benefits for migrants, lawsuit against Ron DeSantis says​




giphy.gif
Interesting lawsuit that one.

They claim that they are legally in the US because they "claimed" asylum.
Well if they are legally in the US, then there isn't any law being broken by then going to another state. Getting a free ticket to one of the nicest places to live in the US is now being trafficked?

Sure, if it was a Democrat controlled city like Chicago, I could imagine getting a free ticket to there would be a human rights violation, but Martha's Vineyard?
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
If I came to you and handed you a bunch of brochures promising you a job in another part of the country then shipped you out on false pretences, then it turned out that I was just doing it for a grotesque political stunt and there were no jobs and nobody even prepared to take them in so those people had to suddenly scramble to find accommodation and care for you, I think you'd have a pretty good case against me.

Every politician that says they will create jobs would then be guilty of fraud.

Why couldn't Martha's Vineyard take them? I thought immigrants were welcome at all Democrat strongholds?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
The locals stepped up as best they could, till they could be moved to an emergency shelter at Cape Cod.



Sorry, I know DeSantis wanted to prove that everyone is as much of a racist pig as he is, but he failed and now he's being sued.
Why is De Santos being racist? Martha's Vineyard is good enough for Barack Obama. Why isn't it good enough for an illegal immigrant.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
Martha's Vineyard is not equipped to provide sustainable accommodation and services. Are you expecting them to establish one when there are existing facilities available elsewhere? The national guard was utilised as they have the resources, equipment and are best placed to assist.
Border towns are not equipped to deal with immigrants either. So why are border towns expected to deal with them?
 

quovadis

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
11,036
Border towns are not equipped to deal with immigrants either. So why are border towns expected to deal with them?
Pretty sure they have federal agencies, centers and facilities in place which are funded by the federal govt.
 

MunosMachos

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2021
Messages
864
The so-called leaders of the "rules-based international order" are using illegal immigrants for political theatre. When the working class wake up to this it will be interesting times for the "elites".
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
Pretty sure they have federal agencies, centers and facilities in place which are funded by the federal govt.
All of them are overflowing in border towns. Which means the government just releases them onto the streets and lets the residents deal with them.
 

quovadis

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
11,036
All of them are overflowing in border towns. Which means the government just releases them onto the streets and lets the residents deal with them.
And there are no plans underway to address this using cities with infrastructure and shelter to support them?

You think it's much more practical to round up some asylum-seekers fraudulently promising cash, jobs, housing and other incentives in a neighbouring state and abandon them elsewhere with no plans, advanced warning or ethical/legal consideration at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayers of a state with no mass-migration issues?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
And there are no plans underway to address this using cities with infrastructure and shelter to support them?

You think it's much more practical to round up some asylum-seekers fraudulently promising cash, jobs, housing and other incentives in a neighbouring state and abandon them elsewhere with no plans, advanced warning or ethical/legal consideration at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayers of a state with no mass-migration issues?
It isn't just a neighbouring state. It is a state that explicitly voted for the president responsible for letting in the migrants in the first place.

The only reason why Democrat states love illegal immigrants is because they don't have to deal with them. All this policy does is make the people who vote for lax borders feel the consequences of lax borders.

A Democrat judge in a Democrat state made it illegal for a state police officer to enforce federal immigration law:

In 2017, Massachusetts' top state court ruled that Massachusetts court officers do not have the authority to arrest someone suspected of being in the U.S. illegally if that person is not facing criminal charges, the state's highest court ruled Monday. That's effectively gave the state sanctuary status.

But for years, advocates have tried to get a bill that would codify sanctuary status in Massachusetts, and it hasn't passed, despite Democrats, who tend to support sanctuary status more than Republicans, controlling the Legislature.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/is-massachusetts-a-sanctuary-state/2835474/

Why is it unethical thing to send illegal immigrants to a place that gives them huge legal protection from being deported?

Ands if they are in the country legally as asylum seekers, what is illegal about giving them a free ticket to a place fit for presidents? Why aren't there jobs for asylum seekers in Martha's Vineyard? I thought Democrat states were meant to be pro poor with pro-poor policies?
 

quovadis

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
11,036
It isn't just a neighbouring state. It is a state that explicitly voted for the president responsible for letting in the migrants in the first place.

The only reason why Democrat states love illegal immigrants is because they don't have to deal with them. All this policy does is make the people who vote for lax borders feel the consequences of lax borders.

A Democrat judge in a Democrat state made it illegal for a state police officer to enforce federal immigration law:
It seems you're missing the point - Let's talk facts.

1) Why must Florida taxpayers pay for relocation of immigrants that were brought to Florida by Desantis himself?
2) Federal immigration policy is law and isn't exactly unilateral. Any judge would enforce it as written.
3) Of the top 20 states with the highest percentage of immigrants in the country only 2 aren't Democrat based on the previous presidential election.
4) The establishment of sanctuary cities can be more credited to Republicans than Democrats.
5) Federal immigration law is enforced by federal agents and there are a ton of them along the southern border.

Why is it unethical thing to send illegal immigrants to a place that gives them huge legal protection from being deported?
1) Asylum-seekers aren't illegal immigrants.
2) Misrepresentation or false promises/statements is fraud. That's unethical.
3) Sanctuary cities don't prevent you from being deported. They just leave immigration enforcement to those tasked with the job.

Ands if they are in the country legally as asylum seekers, what is illegal about giving them a free ticket to a place fit for presidents? Why aren't there jobs for asylum seekers in Martha's Vineyard? I thought Democrat states were meant to be pro poor with pro-poor policies?
1) I think it's been covered above but enticing someone with bullsh--t which isn't a reality is fraud. If I promise you a job, housing and free cash for 8 months and you come here and it's all bullshit that's illegal - migrant or otherwise.
2) Asylum-seekers aren't employment authorised until their case is finalised.
3) Democrat states are very much more pro-poor.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
In a statement provided to Rolling Stone, Cruz press secretary Dave Vasquez argued that the bill Cruz voted against — and which, again, funded the project he’s claiming credit for — was a “Democrat spending spree that contributed to an economic recession for American families,” and that “Ports-to-Plains could have easily and unanimously passed the Senate as a separate bill, but it was rolled into the pork-filled omnibus package Democrats rammed through Congress.”

He should have just kept his mouth shut.

It is a major problem I have with the way they fund things in the US. They love shoving millions of things into bills. It's not as if there is a paper shortage. For example, there was kvetching about a bill Republicans shot down that had a provision to make election day a holiday. Which probably would fly though the senate had it not been attached to a million other things.
 
Last edited:

Emjay

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
15,016
Lets hope he gets a jail sentence similar to James Alex Fields, but I'm guessing not anywhere close

Those that were concerned so much by the death of Heather Heyer are really showing their bipartisanship by condemning the killing of young Cayler Ellingson.

Next up: articles calling for Biden to stop inciting violence by calling Trump supporters extremists.

Not.
 
Last edited:
Top