#border security

[sleepyleftistdemon]

[liberalsarecool]

The hypocrisy. The attack on the rule of law.

Republicans are malware. Weaponized inaction.

#ShamImpeachment #VoteBlue

[jackassdemocrats]

Biden and his open border.

[reality-detective]

This woman is asking the right questions. 🤔

[beauty-funny-trippy]

[pleasant-plant-x]

nintendo doesnt want you to see this

[tomorrowusa]

Republicans demand border reform but whenever it actually becomes a possibility they find ways to sabotage it.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said it is “irresponsible” to reject a bipartisan border bill “without even reading it” in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Saturday. “The crisis at our Southern Border should not be about party politics. The entire nation is finally feeling the burden that border communities have felt for years,” Cuellar’s post read. “It is irresponsible to reject a bipartisan border security bill without even reading it. We have a crisis at our border that demands solutions now.” “Democrats and Republicans must come together to get the job done,” Cuellar continued. Cuellar also included a clip of a recent interview he did on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in which he questioned how someone could push back against a bipartisan border bill that they haven’t read. “Nobody has seen the text,” Cuellar said. House Republicans appear to be close to striking down a chance at border legislation, despite a history of wanting changes to border and migration policy tied with more Ukraine.

Adjudicated sex offender Donald Trump needs something to distract voters from his legal problems and Nazi rantings. So he's instructed Speaker "MAGA Mike" Johnson to kill the border bill being worked on in the Senate.

The whole point of MAGA Republicans is not to offer policy solutions but to use their positions to engage in a perpetual culture war.

[greatwyrmgold]

So, apparently there's been a standoff between the Texas National Guard and US Border Patrol for the past couple of weeks, a physical manifestation of political conflicts between President Biden and Governor Abbot that has disrupted local life and caused multiple deaths.

Shelby Park is a park in Eagle Pass, the town in question. It's a pretty significant component of civic life, hosting events that the town's residents enjoy (and the town's government uses to fund its activities).

Unfortunately, it's next to the Rio Grande, so Texas had the park surrounded with concertina wire (razor wire coils that can be expanded to quickly set up a "fence"). Needless to say, that's going to disrupt local activities. The Eagle Pass residents are not exactly happy about this state of affairs.

Things got worse when migrants started drowning in the river. Border Patrol wanted to access a boat ramp in Shelby Park so they could rescue migrants before they drowned, but the Texas National Guard wouldn't let Border Patrol in under any circumstances. Four people were alive in the river when the Border Patrol showed up; two were rescued by Mexican authorities, but the others drowned. They didn't have to.

I'm not going to argue that someone who fails to save a kid from getting hit by a bus should be held responsible for that kid's death. But if they instead stop a third party from saving the kid? Yeah, that's their fault. Saying that Texas caused the (preventable) deaths of those migrants seems pretty straightforward to me.

(Complicating matters are three other people who drowned about an hour before US Border Patrol was informed that people were drowning in the river. These three deaths are often reported as being connected to this dispute, possibly because talking about a mom and two kids who drowned is more evocative than talking about...I don't know anything about the other two dead guys, because hardly anyone reported anything except their deaths.)

Anyways, the Biden administration sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that federal agents should be given free access to the park. Texas claims it's still open to the public, even though they're only allowing access for media personnel, golfers at the golf course within, and "a memorial".

Texas plans to ignore that sternly-worded letter. The attorney general defends the state's decision by saying that the feds weren't properly enforcing US immigration law, which apparently gives them the authority to...further impede Border Patrol activities...? He also invoked the state's right to self-defense, which is already absurd when we're talking about the general "threat" of people crossing borders, but becomes even sillier in the specific case of blocking Border Patrol from saving four people from drowning.

Biden told Abbot to remove the razor wire. Abbot ordered more razor wire. The Supreme Court agrees with Biden (despite being primarily composed of Republicans). Twenty-five Republican state governors side with Abbot.

Several sources describe the physical standoff between the Texas and Federal forces unprecedented. I'm not sure that's true, or at least not true in the way that's implied; remember the Little Rock Nine? But it's definitely unusual, and if Republican figureheads keep rallying their bases by insisting that “The feds are staging a civil war," it could grow into something worse.

But hopefully it doesn't. It's an ongoing story, and Abbot has two more days to decide whether he wants to pick a fight with the federal government.

Sources below the cut.

[rockyp77mk3]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan E. Greve at The Guardian:

The House speaker, Mike Johnson, is pushing ahead with his plan to hold votes on four separate foreign aid bills this week, despite threats from two fellow Republicans to oust him if he advances a Ukraine funding proposal. Shortly after noon on Wednesday, the rules committee posted text for three bills that would provide funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. The text of a fourth bill, which is expected to include measures to redirect seized Russian assets toward Ukraine and force the sale of TikTok, will be released later on Wednesday, Johnson said in a note to members.

The legislation would provide $26bn in aid for Israel, $61bn for Ukraine and $8bn for US allies in the Indo-Pacific. The Israel bill also appeared to include more than $9bn in humanitarian assistance, which Democrats had demanded to assist civilians in war zones like Gaza. Johnson indicated final votes on the bills were expected on Saturday evening, interfering with the House’s scheduled recess that was supposed to begin on Friday. If the House passes the bills, they will then be combined and sent to the Senate to simplify the upper chamber’s voting process. In February, the Senate approved a $95bn foreign aid package that included many of the same provisions outlined in the four House bills, and the upper chamber will need to reapprove the House package before it can go to Joe Biden’s desk for his signature.

In a statement, Biden called on the House to quickly approve Johnson’s proposal, saying, “The House must pass the package this week and the Senate should quickly follow. I will sign this into law immediately to send a message to the world: we stand with our friends, and we won’t let Iran or Russia succeed.” Johnson will almost certainly have to rely on Democratic votes to get the bills approved, as House Republicans’ majority has narrowed to just two members after a series of resignations. Mike Gallagher, a Republican representative of Wisconsin, had planned to resign on Friday, but his spokesperson told Politico that he “has the flexibility to stay and support the aid package on Saturday”. Some prominent Democrats were already signaling their support for the package on Wednesday, increasing the likelihood of its passage.

“After House Republicans dragged their feet for months, we finally have a path forward to provide support for our allies and desperately needed humanitarian aid,” said Rose DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House appropriations committee. “We cannot retreat from the world stage under the guise of putting ‘America First’.” In a concession to hard-right Republicans, Johnson said in his note to members that the House would also vote on Saturday on a border security bill. The text of the legislation will be posted late Wednesday, Johnson said, and it will include many of the policies outlined in HR 2, a Republican bill with many hardline immigration measures. The House already passed HR 2 last year, but it was never taken up by the Senate. The Democrats who control the Senate remain adamantly opposed to the bill, so a similar proposal faces little hope of passage in the upper chamber. Despite that concession, hard-right Republicans were already expressing displeasure with Johnson’s plan on Wednesday, arguing that any Ukraine aid must be directly linked with stricter border policies.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is advancing foreign aid proposals onto the House floor for a vote despite threats from his hard-right flank (especially on Ukraine aid funding).

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Do you think Islam should be made illegal in Britain? I'm not against people believing in gods, or religious concepts like reincarnation or the afterlife-it's an interesting thing to speculate on, but the things the Quran urges its adherents to do, it's evil, there's no other word for it. Any religion that preaches that homosexuality is immoral and apostates should be killed should not be tolerated at all in Britain. That's what I think, anyway.

I don't think Islam can or should be made "illegal." You can't stop people thinking or believing a thing, no matter how distasteful you might find it. They have the freedom of thought and belief and we must allow them that, so that we can have our own. Since many of these people want to force us to think or believe their thing. You can't even - and shouldn't - practically stop them practicing a thing, at least in the privacy of their own homes. Doing so would be illiberal.

However, it's not illiberal to prevent people acting on those beliefs when doing so undermines the rights and/or safety of individuals or the society at large. Being hung upside down in a garage to be beaten for not reciting the quran, for example.

The root of the problem is Islam, but the problem in practice is jihadism. ISIS are jihadis. So are Boko Haram. Ditto Hamas. They're terrorist organizations that seek global Islamic supremacy through terrorism and war.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/43087

Question: Was Islam spread by the sword?

[..] If Islam was only spread by peaceful means, what would the kuffaar have to be afraid of? Of mere words spoken on the tongue? In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been supported with fear as far as a month’s journey.” Would the kuffaar be afraid of being told, “become Muslim, but if you do not then you are free to believe and do whatever you want”? or were they afraid of jihad and the imposition of the jizyah and being humiliated? That may make them enter Islam so that they may be spared this humiliation. 

They want to do that by dying as martyrs for their god, murdering Jews for starters, but everyone else is also in the firing line.

"Israel is only the first target. The entire planet will be under our law." -- Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas commander.

Which means that anyone invoking their mottos and rhetoric is overtly making an incitement to jihad. We should take them at their word. When Australian school children are shouting "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is great," and specifically the Islamic god), we should believe them.

Two things that I think need to happen:

-

First - and this is probably an unpopular opinion, but I don't care - countries like the UK, the rest of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, etc, need to deal with their immigration crisis. And in some of those countries, it is already past crisis point.

Legal immigration is good. Welcoming people who want to participate in our liberal societies, especially if they're fleeing illiberal ones, is good. There are many immigrants who have made lots of wonderful contributions to our countries, who uprooted their lives to participate in the freedom and opportunities these societies have to offer.

“I read Alexis de Tocqueville, and I read about democracy, and I lived in countries that have no democracy, that have no founding fathers… so I don’t find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom because you don’t know what it is not to have freedom.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Legal immigration includes filtering out those who have ill intentions towards our societies. Cap and extensively vet legal immigration. Get illegal immigration under control and deport illegal immigrants. It may be cute to term it "undocumented immigrants," but that's like calling the person hiding in your attic an "undocumented resident." You have no idea who they are, where they're coming from, what their background is, and importantly, what their intentions are. You have no idea. And the notion that we should let the person living in your attic remain there by default until they do something awful to prove otherwise is moronic.

Keep numbers to a sustainable level and be more selective. Including deporting immigrants who violate the values of the country, or simply shouldn't be there. There are ideologies that want to undermine liberal secular democracy. Islam is not the only one on that list, but it's certainly number one.

Multiculturalism doesn't work. Let me clarify what I mean. This is where cultures are just thrown together in the same country or region, without a dominant culture setting the tone and the values. That doesn't work. The only thing that actually does work is pluralism. In this model, there's a dominant culture, and everybody also brings their cultures and traditions with them. "I am British and Somali." "I am Canadian and Chinese." A good example of this is one of Australia's (many) unofficial anthems, "I Am Australian." Give it a listen. That is, if you want to join our country, then you also have to accept and adhere to the country's overall values. Otherwise, you're not welcome. If you violate them, you're not welcome. If you're looking to tear it down or replace it, you're not welcome. That's not exclusively Islam either. Again, deport.

People who are eager to miss the point like to cast this being intolerable, or even bigoted, that people should actually have to adapt to the culture of the country they're moving to. These people are idiots. Smoothbrained idiots. They live in first world countries that they hate, yet they won't move somewhere else and give up the luxury and freedoms they pretend they don't have, the things immigrants aspire to. They're morons and their mentality is what got countries like the UK into this. It's a "bigotry of low expectations" thing. That immigrants can't be expected to not rape, for example.

If you're moving to a country, particularly if you're escaping some place filled with war and violence, of course you should embrace the alternative that your adopted country offers. And you should be expected to. Why are you going there if not to be a part of what that country is about and has to offer? If you're just transplanting your strife into another country, you can fuck off.

And in particular, this needs to focus on jihadism. Note that I said jihadism. Not Islam, not Muslim. Just as we should not accept those who espouse Nazi ideology, we should not accept those who adhere to Islamic supremacism. You're free to have your beliefs and your religion, as long as you don't intrude on the rights of others to have their own, and as long as you don't incite or target others for violence or harassment, nor plan, advocate or work towards overthrowing or replacing resident political and social philosophy. Not without a fight. You don't get to arrive on the shores of these liberal countries and start setting up communism or Sharia or fascism. Fuck off.

Jihadism needs to be regarded as incitement. Because it is. People chanting "gas the Jews" out the front of the Sydney Opera House isn't a freedom of speech matter, it's incitement to violence. You arrest them, you revoke visas, and you deport them. They're bringing their war to your shores. You nip that in the bud. Dishonest actors will accuse you of being racist or being some other istaphobe, but you can ignore them if you're being consistent. If you would do the same thing to white immigrants inciting violence through Nazi ideology. You stop apologising for it or being cowed by fanatics calling you "racists," who fundamentally hate their own country but won't move to the kind of shithole they want to turn their own country into. Again, you tell them to fuck off.

To quote Douglas Murray, "this is the thing we give up: extending tolerance to people who do not extend it back to us." We have tolerated intolerance long enough.

And yes, there absolutely needs to be a refugee policy and process to help people legitimately fleeing persecution. Given anyone can claim to be a refugee, including jihadis, these need to be carefully vetted. I would argue that the burden of proof resides with the person making the refugee claim, and the default conclusion should be not-a-refugee until proven otherwise. Keep in mind that Canada offered Yasmine Mohammed's Islamically arranged husband, al-Qaeda terrorist operative Essam Marzouk, refugee status.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hamas-chief-lives-london-council-house-uk-phnpsssx5

A Hamas fugitive who “ran the group’s terrorist operations in the West Bank” and served on its ruling body lives in London in a council property he recently bought with a £112,000 discount.

Muhammad Qassem Sawalha evaded Israel’s security services using a relative’s passport and fled to the UK in the 1990s, later obtaining British citizenship.

Revoke his citizenship and throw him out.

-

And secondly, people need to start pushing back harder on Islam, and stop tolerating its intolerance. Of course, that's complicated by the special legal treatment afforded to Islam in some countries, such as Sweden considering laws to ban quran burning and Denmark actually re-instituting blasphemy laws. But people have to stop flinching whenever they're accused of some spurious claim of bigotry or "Islamophobia."

It's a worn-out, fake charge. They're only using it because it used to work. It doesn't and shouldn't.

The idea that you're not allowed to burn the quran is a fiction. It's a rule from somewhere else, strife that has been imported by people seeking to spread that strife to other shores. Of course you have a right to burn a quran, just as they have a right to burn the bible or "The God Delusion" if they want. Being upset or offended cannot be legitimized as an offence. The correct way to proceed is investigate those doing the complaining. They're espousing authoritarian tendencies.

-

Like I said, probably an unpopular opinion, but I don't see how this is unreasonable. It was common sense five minutes ago, when pretty much every administration, left or right, in any western country understood the importance of border and immigration security.

It's not necessary to target Islam or Muslims if you just target authoritarian ideologies consistently, and let things fall where they may.

-

P.S. Turns out that Douglas Murray's "The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam" was quite prophetic.

[reality-detective]

Interesting exchange between the Border Patrol Chief and his agents, the guys know they’re not doing the job they signed up for, you can feel the frustration in their remarks…

Note: They are all wearing masks. 👀

If you call what is going on at the border "Border Security" you've got issues. 🤔

[uboat53]

Hey! Hey! Over here!

Yes, it's me, the guy who tells you that you should check out of politics if you need to until it's time to vote. Well, this is important, you need to pay attention to this one.

Republicans, and Trump in particular, have been talking on and on about how important "securing the border" is for years now. Trump famously didn't manage to strike any kind of deal on the issue during his time in office, but there's a deal brewing right now where Biden would give Republicans at least some of what they want in exchange for aid to Ukraine.

But it's on shaky ground now because Trump is pushing Republicans hard to block it. And he's not trying to block it because of anything specific that's in or not in the deal, we don't even know the details yet so how could he? No, he's trying to block the deal because he wants the border to continue to be an issue so that he can blame Biden for it during the campaign. And I get it, those of us who aren't full-on MAGA are used to him not having any principles, but this is one you need to share with every MAGA person you can talk to.

There's pretty much no chance that Trump will pass a border bill even if he wins the election. Republicans may take the Senate, but they're not going to have a big enough majority to overcome the filibuster or remove it, so Democrats will happily block anything Trump tries to pass. Right now is pretty much their only chance to get anything on this issue and, if you believe that it really is a crisis, then getting something done now is imperative.

If this deal dies, as seems possible right now, Trump is going to make it the centerpiece of his campaign in the fall, and I need you all to pay attention now just for a moment to make sure that you know that he's actually the one who killed Republican's best chance to do something about it.

That's all, go back to your more peaceful world and I'll wake you up when actual elections are getting close.

[pleasant-plant-x]

The west has fallen , billions must paint landscapes.