Ron DeSantis: Human Trafficker?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/marthas-vineyard-massachusetts-migrants-planes/index.html

Isn’t that what he (and Abbot from Texas) are doing when they send people to other states?

And a reminder to the Florida Governor. Massachusetts. The governor there is also a Republican.

From Jonathan V. Last @ The Bulwark and his daily newsletter:

144 thoughts on “Ron DeSantis: Human Trafficker?

  1. I think it’s hilarious that Democrats are hyperventilating and declaring emergencies due to a few bus loads of illegal aliens being bussed to their cities in protest of their refusal to secure our borders. As border sherrifs say, “they have seen nothing”. Got that right including cackling Kam who is supposed to be running the show.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/border-sheriffs-slam-dc-mayor-officials-declaring-emergency-migrant-buses-welcome-our-world.amp

    Like

    1. If the Florida governor is such a good Christian, why is he turning away so many people in need? (Read the Bulwark link for reference.)

      Not to mention the fact that these GOP chickenshits LIE about the policies of the Biden Administration. Anyone with half a brain and the ability to pay attention instead of just scoff when Biden presents a policy, will know that there is no such animal as an “open border policy” Just as there is no Biden policy to Defund the Police. (Yet some GOPers want to defund LE because they are doing their jobs).

      Instead of making a political show by flying/busing immigrants to other parts of the country, why not work with the administration on something that will benefit and help ALL? (The money wasted by DeSantis could have helped with programs to ease the burden on all.) Can’t give Biden ANOTHER win. (But he got one last night averting the rail strike!)

      Liked by 1 person

        1. “They DONT BELONG HERE”

          They have a legal right under our law to apply for refugee status. And they are entitled to due process of law in our country to assess their claim. If you don’t like the law then work to get it changed. In the meantime, it should be enforced.

          The political stunt of shipping refuge seekers off to states not equipped to handle them by jackass Republican governors trying to outdo each other with their pandering to the deplorables only goes to show how banal and unchristian the Republican Party has become.

          If I was a Floridian I would be incensed by the governor using my tax dollars to charter planes to move immigrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard. There is no valid public purpose for such spending. Purely a childish political stunt.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Amazing that you think that New York, Illinois and Massachusetts are “not equipped to handle them” but Texas, Arizona, and Florida(Biden moved thousands from Texas to Florida for some reason) are equipped to handle hundreds of thousands in their border counties.

            Texas and Florida are letting the Blue states see a fraction of the burden Biden has inflicted on them and they are crying like babies.

            Virtue signaling is fine with them, from a distance.

            Like

          2. “Texas and Florida are letting the Blue states see a fraction of the burden Biden has inflicted on them and they are crying like babies.”

            Biden has not inflicted ANYTHING on ANYBODY. You are either a liar or a dope. The “crisis at the border” is a biennial “problem” that seems to come up just before every election. Only thing missing – but will soon appear – are caravans making their way through Mexico. Meanwhile, immigration reform is not possible because of MAGA-Republican power in Congress.

            And, the Bluest of Blue states – California – deals with about the same number of illegal immigrants as Florida and Texas combined. And New York is very close to Florida. So again your red vs blue bullshit is cherry-picked nonsense.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “That is too delusional even for a reply.”

            You are fooling nobody with that dodge. The increased pressure on the border has nothing to do with any policy change implemented by President Biden. It is part of the economic bounce back after the Covid recession. There is no policy of an “open border.” That is just another GOP Big Lie.

            Like

        2. Even the GOP members of Congress don’t want to build the wall. They do enjoy blocking ANY kind of immigration reform. And YOUR hero even reneged on a bipartisan deal.

          And just exactly when and under what circumstances did YOUR family come to this country? Unless you are of 100% native American heritage, you cannot say that YOU belong here either.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Who is it they are supposed to be being cruel to?

    The migrants are here for jobs. Are there no jobs outside of Texas and Florida?

    Is it kind to keep them in one place where they have already saturated the job market? They can’t all stay in McAllen, TX forever.

    I find it amusing to hear mayors of Sanctuary Cities of more than a million people whining because they have to find place for a few hundred migrants instead of leaving a hundred thousand of them in McAllen, which is about 50,000

    Like

    1. So, this airlift from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard was not a cheap political stunt at Florida taxpayer expense but was about humanitarian assistance for desperate refugees? So, too, was dropping off busloads of them at the Vice President’s residence? Yeah, right.

      What is going on here is classic Republican racist bullshit. They are the ones who have repeatedly blocked long overdue and economically beneficial immigration reform so that as every election approaches they can revise their “crisis at the border” hate mongering. Meanwhile it is mainly Republican businesses and corporations that lure immigrants here with their UNPUNISHED and profitable use of cheap illegal labor.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The people at Martha’s Vineyard are horrified at having 50 migrants on their island and you think Republicans are racist? You need to work on your self awareness.

        Why do you think doing good and making a political point are mutually exclusive? Those migrants want jobs, but with hundreds of thousands dumped in Texas, the job market there is saturated. There are probably lots of jobs in Blue cities that the locals won’t take.

        But DeSantis and Abbot are making a point in a way that the media cannot block. Democrats love to virtue signal by declaring their cities ‘sanctuaries’ until those brown people actually show up. Now their hypocrisy is on full display, and in a way the American people can see for themselves.

        There have been several times that Democrats have had full control of Congress and the Presidency, but they didn’t do a thing to fix LBJ’s racist immigration policy, because the Unions would be furious.

        Let them in

        Like

        1. “The people at Martha’s Vineyard are horrified at having 50 migrants . . ”

          Who says they are horrified? You or some other jackass you parrot?

          The reports I have seen say that the people there quickly organized to care for the people used as pawns by the wannabee Trump successor squandering Florida tax payer money to advance his campaign to win over the deplorables. And, by the way, these refugees were lied to and duped to get them on those planes, but don’t let that stop your cheerleading.

          Your history of why we do not have a rational immigration system is dishonest bullshit. As usual. The actual history is that Republicans IN THIS CENTURY have blocked reform again and again. Most recently when a comprehensive bi-partisan plan was killed by Trump who bowed to pressure from the racist wing of his party. You know that this is the truth but you bring up a President who has been dead for 50 years. Laughable.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Martha’s Vineyard arranged for busses hand had the immigrants(not refugees, words have meanings) off the island in less than 24 hours.

            You think those migrants had to be fooled to go where they might find jobs? You think they were better off sitting under bridges in Texas living off handouts? That’s not what they came here for.

            I had no idea LBJ(who had control of both houses of Congress) was a Republican. It was the Democrats under LBJ who set up our current sham system.

            Where is my description of LBJ’s immigration system or other history in error? Note that I have been an advocate of immigration reform and guest worker reform for over a decade.

            The bill Trump refused was amnesty for Dreamers but still did not fund finishing the border wall. Trump would have accepted it if the border had been secured.

            Like

          2. “Trump would have accepted it if the border had been secured.”

            If you seriously believe that a WALL will secure the border, you are delusional.

            And it was not just amnesty for Dreamers; it was comprehensive (not complete or perfect) policy that both sides of the Congressional aisle agreed to and he had siad he woudl sign whatever they brought him.

            Go back and look at the circumstances of his lie about signing what Congress brought him.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. The solution to that is demand driven immigration and guest worker programs

            What is it that you want?

            Keep them out. or let them in but put them on the dole?

            If we let them in, we must let them compete for jobs.

            Like

          4. …” we must let them compete for jobs.”

            You know damned well that these people are given jobs that pay below minimum wage doing the work that Americans WON’T do. You are making me rich in mustard stock again.

            Like

          5. “No, a wall must be backed by removing the incentive for illegal immigration.”

            Actually there is no need for any kind of physical barrier if we remove the incentive for illegal immigration. And, the fact is, that the incentive is being offered by the GOP base of businesses, farmers, and corporations that profit from undocumented labor. You do not need to be a genius to connect the dots between that economic fact and the GOP’s obstructionist stance on reform.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. There are three kinds of wrong here.

            Yes, offering employment to illegals is unlawful.

            Union and other opposition to competing with that labor is another wrong.

            But the overarching wrong is the government facilitating breaking our own laws with ‘catcha nd release’ policy.

            Like

          7. “There are three kinds of wrong here.”

            You have the first one right. That’s it.

            Some unions have opposed reforms, some have favored it. Republicans, not Democrats have killed it.

            “Catch and release” is a political slogan. And it is most certainly not a wrongful attempt to evade our laws. Here is the Catholic bishops take on this slander . . .

            https://justiceforimmigrants.org/what-we-are-working-on/immigrant-detention/catch-and-release-frequently-asked-questions/

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Uh, I’d believe Used Car Salesmen before Catholic Bishops

            C and R is a proper description of allowing illegal immigrants to enter the country and go wherever they want with nothing more than a promise to return for a court date 2 to 3 years off.

            Remember, I WANT immigration reform, including a demand driven guest worker program.

            One of the best ways to get rid of an onerous law is to enforce it. Dry up the cheap labor and let people mow their own lawns and pluck their own chickens a while and you’ll surprised how fast we could get useful reform.

            If our neighbors in Mexico could come here to work at will, you would see a quick end to trafficking and substandard wages as they gained access to the system free of worry about deportation.

            Like

          9. Maybe I am missing something. These folks coming across the border are refugees seeking asylum. They are not heading to tomato farms or meatpacking plants.

            Agree or disagree with our asylum laws, it is what we have and have to respect. Until immigration reform is addressed. Even if most of those seeking asylum will not qualify, we are required to consider their cases at judicial hearings.

            We need hundreds more immigration judges to speed up the process, if nothing else.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. No, they are not.

            People are claiming to be refugees to get around the immigration laws. knowing that they will be allowed to enter and stay for at least 2 years awaiting a hearing. But very few meet the qualifications for asylum and will be deported when they get the hearing.

            And then will be back in a couple of weeks making the same claim.

            But they are not refugees, they are economic migrants.

            But then that was true of nearly all our ancestors. We need to enforce the law to compel change.

            Like

          11. Whether or not they have a qualifying reason for refugee status, the law says we have to go through the process.

            Which is why I said we need a lot more judges until we change the laws.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. So why haven’t laws passed regarding immigration?

            Until then, more judges could speed up the process.

            Wait until climate refugees start picking up steam. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

            PS, we might have our own when the Southwest runs out of water. Remember the Dust Bowl? Well, things have changed since then. We have nearly three times the people.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. Why? Because powerful people on both sides of the aisle like it the way it is,

            Illegal immigrants can’t go to the police if they are forced into sex work for fear of deportation or jail. They can’t complain about long hours with no overtime.

            And, of course, keeping the issue alive creates opportunity for virtue signaling.

            But more judges makes a bad system work better. That has a bad history.

            Like

          14. “No, we need penalties for falsely applying for asylum and a list of countries we will accept refugees from.”

            Both ideas would require Congressional action, i.e., changing the law. I think that “falsely applying for asylum” would be a tough offense to approve given that almost every applicant is fleeing from life-threatening and lawless environments.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. Fleeing crime does not meet the standards for refugees. Religious or political persecution is the standard.

            I would expand it some. I think we should give refugee status to gays and women fleeing Muslim countries.

            Like

          16. in three or four years. If they show up for the hearing.

            Our asylum process is being abused by the Biden administration to bypass our immigration laws instead of changing them.

            Like

          17. “Our asylum process is being abused by the Biden administration to bypass our immigration laws instead of changing them.”

            What nonsense! President Biden has zero control over how many people come here to seek asylum. None. And every dollar that Congress has appropriated to run the system is being spent.

            The problems with the asylum system go back decades. Trump tried to solve it by stealing babies. Is that what you want?

            Liked by 1 person

          18. “If they show up for the hearing.”

            The MAJORITY of them do, as they want their cases heard and , hopefully (for them), be allowed to remain. If you believe they want to spend the remainder of their lives living in the shadows, you are delusional.

            And there is no abuse of the system by Biden. The law is being followed as best it can with the resources available. Increase the number of judges and lawyers to handle the cases and the process will speed up.

            Is the law prefect? No, as you have stated. But what you USUALLY say after that is to change the law. Until the law is changed it is better to improve the flow within the law then to ignore it.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. And a BIPARTISAN plan was presented to the last GOP President, who had said he would sign what ever was brought to him. The law DID include funding for wall construction and was NOT just about Dreamers. It was a compromise (remember that word? Our country was founded on it.) and TFG spit on it and said it wasn’t enough for HIS wall.

            Your continued lack of being genuine in your commentary is the usual bloviation by an anti-Democrat who sees everything and anything they do as criminal. But when the same things are done by Republicans, YOU cheer it.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. Is it the wall or immigration reform? The whiplash of your comments has grown crazy.
            Pick a topic to discuss here or start another thread to make your NUMEROUS, slightly unrelated points.

            Like

          21. Hardly.

            For over a decade I have maintained that our immigration and guest worker allocations should be demand driven.

            It is insane that we allow the same number of immigrants from Crete as Mexico,

            Like

          22. “The Dreamer plan did nothing to fix the LBJ immigration plan or the guest worker allocation.”

            Uh, that was the Reagan immigration plan passed in 1986. LBJ has been dead for 60 years but still you try to blame him for what your party has done THIS CENTURY.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. “Nope”

            Anything that may have been wrong with the system was deliberately not changed in 1986 when major reforms were passed under the leadership of Ronald Reagan. And again, I am referring to THIS CENTURY where the combination of racists, farmers, and corporations in the GOP have been the reason major reforms have failed.

            Liked by 1 person

          24. LBJ signed the racist bill, passed by supermajorities of Democrats who could have passed anything they wanted, 66 votes in the Senate 295 in the House

            Reagan extended amnesty to a lot of people who came here illegally in return for employment regulations. He did not have the votes in Congress to undo what the Democrats had already done. He never had a majority in Congress.

            The system is 100% Democrat

            Own it.

            Like

          25. “Own it.”

            I am talking about THIS CENTURY where the issue is dominated by the MAGA-Republican idea that immigration reform is a plot to undermine the political power of white people. That is the fact of the matter now. Own it.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. There is nothing magical about the year 2000. The 1965 quota system remains in effect.

            At no point did Republicans have the Congressional majorities to fix it. Clinton could have. Obama could have, But neither even proposed a fix.

            This is a Democrat system, and Democrats choose to not fix it because they prefer the issue as a political divider.

            It’s standard practice for Democrats to create a problem and then, with the support of a partisan press, to use it as an issue against Republicans.

            But we here know better. You do to, so you seek to reset the clock to absolve the Democrats who set up the racist quota system of their responsibility for it.

            Like

          27. Having a majority in the Senate is not really CONTROL and you know that. So your contention that the Democrats had the ability to PASS legislation while having MAJORITIES in both houses is useless.

            And I guess you CONVENIENTLY forget that in 2017, the House, Senate AND WH were all in GOP control. Didn’t get the WALL or anything else done wrt immigration then either.

            Laughable, blame the other side EVERY single time horse hockey.

            Liked by 1 person

          28. Note that I did not say Democrats fail to pass reform, they did not propose it.

            Both party’s backers have too much to gain by preserving the status quo.

            Like

          29. …” they did not propose it.”

            DO you understand the why of your statement. Discussions are held regularly, on both sides of the aisle, concerning reforms and changes all of the time. Proposing something that has no chance of getting a hearing is disposed of or tabled until a more suitable POLITICAL environment exists.

            Once again, your one-sidedness rears is ugly head.

            Liked by 1 person

          30. Hardly. It was you and Paul who hung the exploitation of migrant labor on the GOP.

            I have pointed out that neither party was motivated to act when they had the chance.

            It is a bipartisan shame.

            Like

          31. You see what you want. No one said it was ONLY one side that is responsible except for you. And you continued to double-down on it with every comment. A side handed comment that it is both sides by you does not exonerate you from your continued Democratic hatred. You don’t jump up and down about the GOP.

            Liked by 1 person

          32. Actually, if you book back up the thread, you will see that I originally said that backers of both parties benefited from the status quo.

            It was Paul who tried to hang it on the GOP alone, I pointed out that the Democrats have had the power to change it and chose not to.

            Like

          33. “But they are not refugees, they are economic migrants.”

            Like most categorical statements, this one is false. They are a mix of refugees and migrants. And, until they get their day in court, they are applicants for refugee status.

            Liked by 1 person

          34. “Really? What wars or political oppression are the fleeing?’

            The Russian invasion of Ukraine.

            The violence in Latin America is too prevalent and widespread to list. Venezuela for example. People fleeing from it are refugees.

            Liked by 1 person

          35. By US Law a refugee must

            “The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”

            Not all Venezuelans would qualify, would they?

            Perhaps an Austrian School Economist professor would qualify, because his opinion might be a reason for oppression, but a xarpenter would not, for example.

            Like

          36. ” Not all Venezuelans would qualify,”…

            DeSantis’s own words betray that.

            It seems to me you did not even read the link or anything actually pertinent, based on your statements

            Like

          37. Desantes, taken out if context, is not the arbiter of asylum, there are specific requirements, and economic migrants do not meet them.

            I provided the requirments

            Like

          38. DeSantis, the trafficker-in-chief from Florida, has stated that Venezuelans SHOULD be considered as refugees. Unless of course they are being used as political pawns in the immigration game. Tnen they are fodder for photo ops and political grandstanding.

            Liked by 1 person

          39. “Not all Venezuelans would qualify, would they?”

            They ALL qualify to legally come here and request asylum. The Venezuelans dumped on Martha’s Vineyard were here LEGALLY to do just that. As pointed out elsewhere, the “leftist” “commie” government of Venezuela is pure evil for you people unless you are someone fleeing from it Then it is not so bad.

            Liked by 1 person

          40. ALL of them were here LEGALLY awaiting their refugee hearings. You do not know the circumstances of the individuals, so don’t paint with the broad brush the right loves to use when talking about immigration and immigrants.

            Plus, s Texas sheriff is opening an investigation into DeSantis’s actions. HMMMM.

            Liked by 1 person

          41. “What jurisdiction does he have, other than being a Democrat?”

            Laughable how you constantly spout this kind of nonsense while pretending to be a champion of the Rule of Law.

            The jurisdiction that he has is that crimes were committed in the county of which he is sheriff. Kidnapping by deception is still kidnapping. The Venezuelan immigrants were lured onto those planes with fraudulent promises. The woman “Perla” working for DeSantis has now made herself scarce. Why is it that so many of you people think the law is for other people? Maybe the influence of Mr. Trump?

            Liked by 1 person

          42. “They were from his county?”

            I guess you are just plain stupid. The home of the victims of a crime is irrelevant. The place where the crime is committed has the obligation to deal with the criminals. Duh!

            Like

          43. “One of the best ways to get rid of an onerous law is to enforce it.”

            The law requires that each applicant for refugee status be given a court hearing in accordance with the due process of law. Since DHS does not have the funds necessary to process the load quickly nor to hold people until the get their day in court, they are left with no choice but to release them pending that date. If Republicans want to change that, they could quit blocking DHS budget requests.

            Of course, the real solution is comprehensive reform that would end the perceived need for economic migrants to claim refugee status. Every time we get close to such reform, MAGA-Republicans have blocked it. Most famously when Trump reneged on his promise to support the bi-partisan legislation agreed to by Congress.

            Liked by 1 person

          44. The Bi-partisan legislation you refer to would not have fixed the problem, it was about citizenship for Dreamers. It did not address our quota system, which is the problem

            Like

          45. And that would have fixed the racist quota system how?

            There is no rational reason for admitting the same number of immigrants from Crete and Mexico other than to minimize the number of Mexicans who come to be American citizens.

            Like

          46. Big difference in the move from Martha’s Vineyard than the one TO MV. When they went “voluntarily” to MV, they were told by officials in Florida that there were jobs waiting for them there. When they were moved to SUITABLE facilities to care for them (the shelter where they were dropped is normally equipped for about 10 people, but they still did their best to care for the 50 that arrived.) they were told EXCALTY where they were going and what was going to happen.

            Slamming the people of MASS, who are led by a Republican governor, is stupid and the move made by DeSantis (and Abbott) is heartless and cruel. Abbot and Ron should have their Christian baptisms cancelled.

            Liked by 1 person

          47. “I don’t know what they were told Neither do you.”

            And now we do. The first part of the newsletter details exactly what DeSantis told these PEOPLE. Also, that they ARE refugees.

            https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/the-progressive-delusion-of-co-ed?r=7hgxp&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

            The “mic drop” take in in the footnotes. Footnote #1, to be exact.

            “It’s important to note that DeSantis only thinks Venezuela is an authoritarian communist hell hole when he’s posturing about being Tough on Socialism. When he’s posturing about being Tough on Immigration, then he thinks Venezuelans have nothing to complain about.”

            Liked by 1 person

          48. By that definition, every female resident of every Muslim country could qualify for asylum.

            But that’s not what asylum is for. Refugees must be singled out for oppression by their governments.

            BTW, do you have a source for that brochure? It seems unlikely a brochure was printed up for 50 people. Was it perhaps a brochure from Massachusetts Social Services

            Like

          49. “, do you have a source for that brochure? It seems unlikely a brochure was printed up for 50 people. Was it perhaps a brochure from Massachusetts Social Services”

            The LINK in the NEWSLETTER I shared has the information.

            https://popular.info/p/the-smoking-gun-in-marthas-vineyard

            So the answer to the question is 1) Yes; here is the source information. 2) It was NOT for Mass Social Services; it is a standard UNCR brochure PROBABALY fraudulently used by DeSantis, et al.

            Liked by 1 person

          50. “But that’s not what asylum is for. Refugees must be singled out for oppression by their governments.”

            Buzz! False.

            I gave you the actual LEGAL criteria for seeking asylum in this thread. You can take your made up facts and shove ’em. The fear need not be based on being “singled out.” Nor need it be the government who is the bad actor. . .

            “Under U.S. law, a “refugee” is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” due to race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin. This definition is based on the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocols relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the United States became a party in 1968.”

            Liked by 1 person

          51. The definition you provide is the same one I did.

            “Singled out” might not have been the best choice of words, but not every Venezuelan is under threat of persecution due to race, religion, etc” On the contrary, 95% plus are not.

            Like

          52. Single out by category is not that different from singled out as an individual.

            But you knew that, you’re arguing like a 14 year old girl making issues of technicalities to avodi facing the overqll issue.

            Like

          53. “14 year-old girl?”
            For calling out more of your constant dishonesty?

            This statement is FALSE . . . “Refugees must be singled out for oppression by their governments.” You make that FALSE statement after I gave you the actual criteria and after you had apparently found them yourself.

            Liked by 1 person

          54. “And again, is singled out by category not correct?”

            That is what you are saying now. And no, it is not correct. The person to be granted asylum need not be singled out individually or by category by the government or anyone else. The test is do they have a “well-founded fear of persecution.”

            Liked by 1 person

          55. No, it isn’t, read again. It must be based on race, religion, membership in some community or other category.

            Venezuela has a lousy government that results in hardship for the people, but the does not make them refugees as defined by law.

            Like

          56. “Venezuela has a lousy government that results in hardship for the people, but the does not make them refugees as defined by law.”

            Every case is different. Each Venezuelan dumped in Martha’s Vineyard was here LEGALLY waiting for the processes specified in OUR LAW to be played out. You do not know enough about Venezuelan society, politics, corruption, or problems to categorically say anything one way or another about their eventual ruling.

            Liked by 1 person

          57. I know enough to know that 95% of the cases awaiting a hearing will be denied. But by then they will have dropped a couple of anchor babies.

            Instead of fixing our system they are looking for ways around it.

            Like

          58. “But by then they will have dropped a couple of anchor babies.”

            True colors!

            And by the way, the current asylum request success rate is about 50% not 5%. So, your Archie Bunker bullshit is wrong by just 1 order of magnitude. Not bad for you.

            Liked by 1 person

          59. “Asylum cases reaching their hearings now were those initiated during Trump’s administration, so they were a very different sample.”

            Uh, not so different. The asylum approval rate under President Obama was about 45%. Still an order of magnitude higher than your Archie Bunker “anchor baby” bloviating.

            Liked by 1 person

          60. Your drunk history attempting to lay the current immigration system at the feet of LBJ is more of your fact-free bullshit. Far more significant for the shape of things today was the 1986 reform passed when Reagan was President. Here, from a source you trust, is the actual history and the many problems created by many legislative actions going back to 1917.

            https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day#reforms-1990s

            More to the point, IN THIS CENTURY, needed reforms – no matter whose failures need reforming – have been blocked by racist MAGA-REPUBLICANS. The same ones once again playing their biennial racist “crisis at the border” politics.

            Liked by 1 person

          61. The legal definition of who is a refugee and can therefore apply for asylum is quite a bit broader than you seem to think…

            “Under U.S. law, a “refugee” is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” due to race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin. This definition is based on the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocols relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the United States became a party in 1968.”

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “But DeSantis and Abbot are making a point”…

          And making it badly. Instead of using funds to bus and fly migrants to other parts of the country, use the money, TAXPAYER money, to fund programs to help these people and those of his constituents.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Didn’t say that. And you are being disingenuous by even thinking that.

            Some of that STATE theft you are always lamenting being used to ship people around like cattle. I guess you are ok with that use of stolen funds.

            Like

          2. So, they should just pile up in TX and FL with no prospects of employment and rot there?

            And taking them where they can find work is cheaper that keeping them on public support in Texas forever.

            Like

          3. Then tell the businesses in Texas (and other places) to stop providing the actual incentives for people to cross the border.

            You put a lot of blame in the wrong place.

            Like

          4. “And taking them where they can find work is cheaper that keeping them on public support in Texas forever.”

            The planes that took refugees from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard (to find work) were paid for by Florida.

            You just keep ignoring some key facts – Biden has done nothing that changed the situation at the border and Blue states harbor as many or more undocumented immigrants as Red states. It is a national problem in need of serious people to find solutions, not racist MAGA clowns playing petty politics with the lives of helpless people.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Biden flew over 400,000 migrants to places around the country no more prepared to take them than Martha’s Vinyard.

            The press ignored the whole thing.

            Desantis got their attention.

            Like

          6. Not true. The states were notified of how may people were being relocated to their states. It was covered, but YOUR media only covers their slanted view of things and ignores a lot of facts.

            DeSantis is a fraud.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Does that change the fact they were relocated into cities without the approval of those cities?

            It’s easy to virtue signal that you’re a sanctuary city until those brown people actually show up.

            Like

          8. The REAL fact is those cities were notified PRIOR to people being moved there. They were not dumped like so much human detritus by the governor of another state.

            You are getting better and better at making up shit to support your argument. NOT! Too bad it is just a lot of fertilizer. you should sell it on Amazon and give back your Social Security checks.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. I thought they all went to Florida. That is what you were saying before. Not to mention that the MV migrants were lured, fraudulently, out of Texas and over $950K of Florida tax money was used for a POLITICAL stunt.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. No, I did not. I said they DISPROPORTIONATELY sent to FL.

            Political stunt? Stunt? Damned good one too.

            Liberals squeal so appealingly when their hypocrisy is exposed.

            Like

          11. “I said they DISPROPORTIONATELY sent to FL”

            Cite?

            Also, the MV migrants were all awaiting asylum hearings. They were told they woudl receive expedited benefits, work papers a stipend and several other “benefits” if they just signed on the dotted line and got on a plane to Boston. OOPS. Missed Logan International by a bit. Sorry.

            And what hypocrisy was exposed? The states and cities where the people are being moved to are doing the same kind of things that are being done in Texas and other border states. And not whining about it.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Marhta’s Vinyard got 50. Many Texas border towns have had to deal with 4 times their own population.

            I know Biden would like to send migrants to only Red states, but DeSantis and Abbott are seeing to it that Democrat cities get their share too.

            Like

          13. Didn’t know that Illinois was a Red state. Pennsylvania is PURPLE. California is as blue as it gets and they have their own, along with any others that may have been moved there because of better conditions for them to be held or had FAMILIA there to help support them until their hearings.

            One-sided drivel does not propel your argument forward.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. “Liberals squeal so appealingly when their hypocrisy is exposed.”

            Pathetic! No liberals are squealing. There is no hypocrisy. Blue states already accommodate as many new immigrants as Red states. The difference is Democratic politicians do not try to score points by misleading, abusing, and demonizing asylum seekers.

            Too bad you are not decent enough to simply condemn the cruelty and criminality of this Martha’s Vineyard stunt. Oh no. For you people it is a good thing to lure confused and desperate newcomers onto a plane with false promises of housing and work. What a hoot!

            Like

          15. Sending people from crowded shelters in TX to Martha’s Vineyard where there are presumably jobs available is cruel?

            Where should they have been sent instead to find better prospects?

            Like

          16. “Where should they have been sent instead to find better prospects?”

            They were told they were going to Boston. That was one of the lies that induced them to board the planes. Boston would have been better.

            Like

    2. “The migrants are here for jobs. ”

      And apparently that is what DeSanits’ folks told these people to get them on the plane. Instead of trafficking, maybe it is just straight up kidnapping.

      Political stunts such as this do NOT address the issue.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. A good hot take (again!) from JVL @ The Bulwark.

    “It’s not a coincidence that DeSantis is a fetish object for Republicans and Charlie Baker is an object of their hatred and scorn. Republicans don’t want their elected leaders to solve problems. They want them to hurt the people they hate.”

    And borrowed from his newsletter today, referring to a piece by Jonathan Chait:

    “Jonathan Chait notes that this tactic has been tried before in America:

    The idea was employed even earlier by White Citizens Councils in the 1960s, which — much like DeSantis — lured Black people onto buses with promises of jobs and then deposited them in the North. White Citizens Councils bused three dozen Black people to Hyannis, the Kennedy home, in 1962.

    The premise of the gimmick was that hypocritical northern liberals pretended to care about the rights and welfare of Black people in the South but wouldn’t actually be willing to live up to these ideals if put face to face with the dark-skinned underclass Southerners had to live with every day. “We know you’ll protect their civil rights and give them equal employment opportunities,” sneered the White Citizen’s Council leader who carried out the stunt.”

    History repeating itself by southern racists? Maybe not full blown racist, but the sentiment is too close.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “History repeating itself by southern racists?”

      Hatred of other people has been the prime mover of southern politics since before the Civil War. In the age of the Internet they are spreading their poison around the world.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s