Immigration

Greg Abbott Has Used Migrants as Political Pawns Again and Again. Now, He Says He'll Bus Them to Capitol Hill.

Given his track record, it isn’t surprising that Abbott would opt for a blusterous anti-migrant spectacle that comes at the expense of Texas taxpayers.

|

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has long held that his state is facing an "invasion," which consists of thousands of migrants crossing into the United States from Mexico over the Rio Grande. Now, in an attempt to resist "the Biden open border policies" he claims are endangering Texans and compromising national security, Abbott is prepared to implement a policy that drew scrutiny as soon as he announced it.

"To help local officials whose communities are being overwhelmed by hordes of illegal immigrants," said Abbott, "Texas is providing charter buses to send these illegal immigrants who have been dropped off by the Biden administration to Washington, D.C."

The announcement follows the Biden administration's decision not to extend its Title 42 order, which allowed U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officials to immediately expel would-be migrants from land borders, thus barring them from claiming asylum. "We are sending them to the United States Capitol," Abbott continued, "where the Biden administration will be able to more immediately address the needs of the people that they are allowing to come across our border." Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd said the state "will use as many buses as we need to follow the governor's direction to get this done."

Right away, immigration advocates and those with a passing respect for individual rights pointed out that Abbott's proposal, as stated, is both immoral and illegal. Transporting migrants across state lines against their will "sounds dangerously close to federal felony kidnapping," argued Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council. Further, Title 8 of U.S. Code Section 1324(a) states that "any person who…knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise…shall be punished."

Perhaps those snags are why the governor's office has since softened its tone on busing migrants north. A press release published after the press conference stressed that "a migrant must volunteer to be transported" in order to board a bus or flight to Washington, D.C.

Even with the quick modification to Abbott's border measures announced yesterday, the new busing policy sits atop a heap of misguided, expensive, and dubiously legal initiatives the governor has undertaken in order to keep migrants out of his state—people who have the right under U.S. immigration law to seek asylum in Texas.

This policy comes from the man who proposed building a border wall of his own after former President Donald Trump's never came to fruition. Abbott's project, which is ongoing, ran into many of the same issues as Trump's—exorbitant costs, tension between federal and state jurisdiction, and the need for egregious eminent domain claims in order to get the job done (not to mention a lack of widespread support). "The elected officials in border communities don't support [Abbott's] plans," American Civil Liberties Union of Texas attorney David Donatti told Reason last year.

The governor's border-securing mission—Operation Lone Star—has been similarly fraught. While Abbott and other state officials bragged about "more than 11,000 criminal arrests, drug seizures that amount to millions of 'lethal doses,'" and tens of thousands of undocumented immigrant referrals to the federal government for deportation, watchdogs reported "arrests of U.S. citizens hundreds of miles from the border," "claiming drug busts from across the state," and changing statistics and metrics of success, according to The Texas Tribune. Several Texas National Guard soldiers stationed at the border committed suicide during the operation, while dozens more criticized the mission's execution in an internal survey. With its spotty track record, the still-active Operation Lone Star costs taxpayers more than $2.5 million each week.

With that background in mind, it isn't surprising that Abbott would opt for a blusterous anti-migrant spectacle that comes at the expense of Texas taxpayers and neglects any humanitarian or legal obligations to asylum seekers. Simply taking in migrants would be a far better use of resources than busing them out, given the significant contributions immigrants make to the Texan economy and labor force.

One in six Texas residents is an immigrant, and the state's immigrant population paid $12.3 billion in state and local taxes in 2018. Undocumented immigrants contributed $1.6 billion to that figure, all while being broadly ineligible for public benefits like Medicaid or food stamps in Texas. Immigrants contribute more than they take—certainly in Texas, which spends more than any other state on border security.

It is unquestionable that many small border communities may see their resources strained by migrant inflows, which will increase as the Biden administration hangs up its Title 42 order and the immediate expulsions it permitted. But spending exorbitant amounts of public money on Operation Lone Star hasn't stopped migrants from coming to Texas, and investing in interstate buses and flights for migrants won't solve the state's immigration issues, either. As controversial as the Biden administration's suspension may be, Title 42 encouraged repeat crossings and smuggling activity. Abbott publicly warns of impending crime and chaos at the border, but ignores that part of the equation.

Concerns about border communities' capacity to process migrants are valid, but it will be up to the Biden administration to ensure the proper agencies can process migrants efficiently. (Whether it can do that, of course, remains to be seen). Immigration enforcement is under the federal government's purview, and Abbott simply doesn't have the legal authority to do much of what he is doing at the border. Unfortunately, it seems that immigrants will continue to be pawns in his political game.

NEXT: Minnesota's Attorney General Says the Cop Who Killed Amir Locke Was Defending Himself. So Was Locke.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When are you idiots going to realize the open borders is only slightly less popular than grooming schoolchildren?

    1. “That open borders”

      1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an income... You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection... Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up... http://jobscash.tk

      2. What's going on now is not immigration it's invasion. If and when Republicans are in power this joke needs to be addressed. Why didn't Trump and GOP take care of this? Cause Trump's a Fk idiot.

    2. But Nick Gillespie told me several times more Americans than ever agree with the statement "Immigration is a good thing." This proves the Koch / Reason open borders agenda is extremely popular.

    3. Thank God jeff gas stated his love of open borders for pedophiles so he covers both bases.

    4. Look, the Dems have really hit on the pulse of America. Everybody knows that those rubes in flyover country love when you say "Gay, Gay, Gay." And that the maids love it when you avoid assuming their gender by calling them Latinx.

    5. I'm sure if Ms. Harrigan asked nicely, Governor Abbot will bus the illegal aliens directly to her home.

      Which reminds me. How many law professors have resigned their tenured position at their law school and demanded that an illegal alien be hired to fill that vacant spot? Still zero? You don't say!

      Ms. Harrigan does not seem to live in a border town and have to deal with the drugs, child trafficking, and crimes that these illegal aliens bring with them. She does not have to try to stretch a local county budget to provide housing and medical care for those people the federal government just drops off at the town square. So, what's wrong with Abbot delivering the people to D.C. or other areas that actually want these aliens in the country?.

      Ms. Harrigan does not seem to have a "passing respect" for the ranchers whose land, fences, and property are being destroyed by those illegally entering our country. Nor for those people who are killed by the drugs they bring with them. Where is the respect for those children who are abused or the people who are killed by those who come in and have no respect for our laws?

      BTW, FJB! (and Brandon as well).

      1. come visit the border Fiona, and see how well things are going...

    6. They are not migrants Fiona but illegal aliens. Without the proper work papers they are breaking the law and should be deported immediately. IF the Federal Govt is refusing to enforce the law, States have the moral authority to do so. While deportation would be the proper thing, busing to DC would be a second option. Melnick (sounds like a bolshie to me) forgets allowing this is an attack on the natural rights of American Citizens as open borders threatens their life and liberty. Getting sick of Reason left-retards who only care about open borders, abortion, and pot. Focus on the Fed, the War State, and the creeping authoritarianism which is taking over DC, the media, academia, and big tech/wall street.

      1. ^THIS +10000000000
        "they are breaking the law"

    7. Migrants, Reason uses the language of the woke left .
      Criminal illegal aliens would be the correct term.

  2. The idea that the border between Mexico and Texas is, and should be, permeable but that the border between Texas and DC shouldn't be is rather... unique.

    1. But Fiona cares about Texas’ tax payers!

      1. Fuck the taxpayers, what she really needs to worry about is all the Texans who just want to enjoy the fruits of low-cost labor and the untapped talent of Mexican rocket scientists.

      2. It’s not an expense, it’s an investment.

      3. I don't know why she doesn't want Washington DC to reap the bounty of having those immigrants around. Wasn't she saying just the other day how much economic benefit they bring? Doesn't DC deserve that?

        1. Exactly.

        2. I think we can all agree that DC does indeed deserve that.

          1. DC deserves a nuke

            1. No, that's San Francisco.

    2. Where do you think the 1 million Ukrainian refugees are going?

      1. Not to elitists' gated neighborhoods.

      2. Pornhub?

    3. I made a comment a couple of weeks ago, musing about the mechanics of snatching Ukrainian refugees out of Europe and shipping them here.

      Not that I'm against bringing in families displaced by a war, but I mused about the optics of say, immigration officials in Moldova or Germany or France, loading Ukrainian refugees and shipping them to America.

      I guess from what I read in this article, the optics of that would be "bad".

      1. It would be very problematic.

      2. No, see that would be a Democrat snatching up foreigners and dropping them in the US, which is good. This is moving foreigners from Republican controlled areas to Democrat strongholds that demand foreigners be let on at all costs, and that is bad.

    4. The national border is a... national issue. As such it's not Abbott's prerogative to forcibly bus immigrants out of his state. The jurisdiction of who can legally reside within the borders of the United States is NOT up to Texas. The choice as to you gets to apply for asylum or not is not a choice Texas gets to make.

      Hell, last I checked the Immigration and Naturalization Service was not even a Texas based agency. It was, ahem, a federal agency.

      1. It is more greatly born on border states you retarded shit.

      2. It just sucks for them they're on the border and people like you think they should just suck it up and deal with it. Is that right?

      3. So Texas has to continually provide the majority of humanitarian relief for them because people who live 2000 miles from the border get to vote on it? Do I get to vote that the poor community 20 miles downstream isn't allowed to use water from the same river?

      4. See? This is why it all drives me crazy. I have more in common with Jorge who lives 15 miles away across the Mexican border than I do with George who live 1,500 miles away on the East Coast - but I'm supposed to let George tell me what I can and can not do?

        1. I'd be willing to trade brandybuck for Jorge

          1. Brandy made sure he moved to an all white neighborhood but still wishes he had more diversity near him.

      5. The jurisdiction of who can legally reside within the borders of the United States is NOT up to Texas. The choice as to you gets to apply for asylum or not is not a choice Texas gets to make.

        He's not saying they can't legally reside within the borders of the United States. He's just saying Texas can't afford to have them live there.

      6. Texas is just asking the federal gov't to actually enforce the law. CA is actively obstructing federal law enforcement officers via numerous "sanctuary" laws. Is it CA's prerogative to obstruct ICE law enforcement efforts?

      7. "The choice as to you gets to apply for asylum or not is not a choice Texas gets to make."

        That is exactly why all the illegal aliens should be delivered to D.C., don't you think? It's not the state's responsibility.

        1. ^AND THIS

      8. States have a right to interpose when the Federal Govt is not doing it's job. Borders and Abortion should start the national divorce nicely at this point. Once some States legalize competing currencies..the divorce will be final

      9. The jurisdiction of who can legally reside within the borders of the United States is NOT up to Texas. The choice as to you gets to apply for asylum or not is not a choice Texas gets to make.

        Hell, last I checked the Immigration and Naturalization Service was not even a Texas based agency. It was, ahem, a federal agency.

        Perhaps DC is the best place to house them, then.

      10. The national border is a... national issue.

        You seem to have forgotten that portion of the southern national border is also Texas' southern state border. Thereby making it their issue as well.

      11. Isn't DC part of the United States? It's not like Abbott is deporting them.

      12. Then the federal government is duty bound AND legally bound to actually deal with the issue. The second they drop them off in a state and high tail it out, it becomes a state issue and the state can handle the situation as they please.

  3. Anti illegal immigrant. Fixed it for you.

    1. Isn’t every criminal looking for a better life?

  4. Right away, immigration advocates and those with a passing respect for individual rights pointed out that Abbott's proposal, as stated, is both immoral and illegal. Transporting migrants across state lines against their will "sounds dangerously close to federal felony kidnapping," argued Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council.

    But then later:

    With that background in mind, it isn't surprising that Abbott would opt for a blusterous anti-migrant spectacle that comes at the expense of Texas taxpayers and neglects any humanitarian or legal obligations to asylum seekers.

    So it's immoral for Texas to neglect giving them humanitarian aid at the expense of Texas taxpayers. It's also immoral to send them to someone else to get humanitarian aid. Therefore, the only legal recourse Texas has is to be on the hook for all the humanitarian aid necessary to take care of the immigrants who are overwhelming entering through Texas, an issue many other states don't have to deal with. So the federal government says that Texas can't control Texas borders because it's a national issue, but trying to distribute the population out of Texas is unconstitutional.

    Hrmm...I don't think there's a consistent application of principles here. If immigrants are so good for the country, then it seems that DC should be excited for buses full of hard-working, honest people to be dropped off in their city where they can become immediate assets for the local economy. Right?

    1. Hrmm...I don't think there's a consistent application of principles here.

      It's very consistent with the Democrats' goal of turning Texas blue.

      1. "Democrats' goal of turning Texas blue"

        Oops! You beat me by 4 minutes. 🙂

      2. Considering that polling shows several border districts going from solid blue into toss-ups, I'd say that their plan isn't exactly working as intended.

        1. The "school exists to sexualize prepubescent children" hasn't gone over with the browns as well as they thought it would

          1. Imagine that!

          2. I don't think the Latinx stuff or the fake Mexican running for Governor are doing them any favors either.

    2. If Fiona came put and stated no state or federal welfare for any illegal immigrants then shed almost have a principle.

      1. The neat thing about starting with principles is that you don't have to restructure your arguments every time a new circumstance comes up. You're not constantly having to redefine things to keep arguing for your desired outcomes. And I have nothing against people who have to re-examine their principles if they find their principles are putting them in an untenable position; you should always be willing to test your principles by seeing how they might lead to undesirable results.

        What actually happens most of the time in public discourse is people decide how they're going to feel about something first, and then seek the rationalization later. This is a case of Bad Republican Man, so we need to use every argument we can make to point out why he's Bad, even if those arguments are operating on contradictory principles. It would be much easier and more persuasive to just acknowledge that some of the many arguments you COULD use aren't worth making because they're incompatible with a principled approach.

        Fiona, however, is all about one desired outcome, which is Open Borders At All Cost. When you're focused on outcomes instead of processes, you make bargains and agreements that aren't really beneficial.

    3. If immigrants are so good for our country, how come they don't seem to be doing much good for their own countries?

      1. It’s not their fault their country doesn’t have magic dirt.

      2. This is the part of the argument where a combination of white guilt, white savior complex, and ignorance of brain drain shines through the clearest.

        They have no answer.

  5. What a jerk.

    Obviously immigrants aren't just cost-effective labor for billionaire employers like Reason.com's benefactor Charles Koch. I mean, of course that's part of their appeal. But they're also useful as imported Democratic voters who can settle in red or purple states and eventually turn them permanently blue like California. Sending them to Washington DC — already overwhelmingly Democratic — will slow down the Koch / Reason libertarian plan to #TurnTexasBlue.

    #LibertariansFor50Californias

    1. You can Beto there's a useful idiot on hand who won't mess with trans kids. Unless the very very young adults consent, of course.

  6. What happened to that guy that would draw the giant penis pics with letters and punctuation marks?

    1. You rang?

      ………………………………………._¸„„„„_
      …………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
      ………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
      …….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
      ……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
      **¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
      .:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
      :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
      .::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
      :.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
      :.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
      :.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
      .:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
      :.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
      : : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
      "-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

      1. Great user name.

        1. ...

          ...

          Ok... but why did you want that?

          1. I thought it would be a appropriate response to this piece of propaganda.

            1. You're not wrong, but... Damn.

            2. I can't disagree.

              Still, that was pretty shockingly good service for a very specific request.

              I'm kinda curious what other pictures a person could request, but SPBP posts here and I'm afraid to find out.

              1. Well...there WAS a guy on /. who used to post a pretty nice ASCI goatse pic. NOT asking for it, but it's a memory. Not a fond one, but a memory.

                1. Enh, at least I already bear that scar... 😉

        2. Can you conjure up "Agile Cyborg"?

  7. Imagine if the borders of the country were like the borders of the capitol.
    There’d be dead bodies everywhere.

  8. Wait... WHO'S using immigrants on the southern border as pawns?

    1. Rebutting my assertion that Trump was not a 12-D chess genius but a regular chess player being opposed by tic-tac-toe players: Abbott's really using them more like rooks or bishops.

      1. From Texas to DC? That looks like up and over, so nights?

        1. He's sending them to mate the King, in D.C. Knights would only get to MS or TN. 🙂

          1. Oops. MO or TN.

        2. Straight diagonal- bishops

          1. If they were flying, then maybe knights

  9. Quit your whining Fiona, think about all those delicious taco trucks coming to D.C.
    and there's plenty of room at 1747 Connecticut Ave NW. Washington, DC 20009 to house them all.

    1. To be fair, there's apparently a lot of work that homeless people lining the streets of LA "won't do", so at this point, why not take advantage of immigrant labor?

  10. Abbott's proposal, as stated, is both immoral and illegal. Transporting migrants across state lines against their will "sounds dangerously close to federal felony kidnapping

    Except that the migrants always have the option of simply going home. So it's like felony kidnapping, except not at all like it.

    1. Mexican cartels and coyotes transporting immigrants is moral though.

      1. Especially if they’re bringing kids with them.

        1. And only raping half of the females along the way.

          1. Sir, are you a biologist?

    2. Why would Reason want to deprive DC of all the awesome benefits and riches that flow from massive illegal immigration? Seems racist.

      1. So racist. Those benefits are totally not made up.

        1. How many gardeners does a country need?

    3. Also, the US transports hundreds, if not thousands of people who break even more trivial laws across state lines against their will every day.

    4. Didn't Biden get caught flying illegals to the middle of nowhere and dropping them off?

  11. Haha, good for him.

    Fuck Reason for gaslighting us with the conflation of illegal with legal immigration.

    1. 2 million illegal immigrants at a tentative 95% false asylum claims will cross this year at current rates. Double legal immigration. Crashing local border economies.

      The city if ajo in Arizona was a primary dump spot for illegal immigrants on Arizona, they near bankrupted the city and charity providers for those immigrants. Arizona has lost virtually every trauma 1 care hospital within 100 miles due to costs of illegal immigrant care. Meanwhile the immigrants under false claims are provided free transportation, hotels, cell phones. Pads, education for kids at 3x the cost of American kids, free Healthcare, free legal representation, etc.

      Fuck this moral preening.

      1. I think 2 million is just the count of encounters- doesn't include those who cross undetected.

        Billions for illegal immigrants (aka invaders...) and billions for Ukraine, in addition to all the routine billions going out as tribute to the rest of the world.

        Fuck globohomo

        1. I just had a pretty solid laugh imagining all 2 million of them being delivered to DC or San Francisco or something, all at once, though...

  12. I can’t wait to see how Desantis try’s to outdo Abbot.

    1. We're bussing them to Delaware

    2. Why would he? Cubans vote Republican.

  13. Why would Reason want to deprive DC of all the awesome benefits and riches that flow from massive illegal immigration? Seems racist.

  14. "He Says He'll Bus Them to Capitol Hill"

    Good.

    If migrants are so great, what's the complaint here? They can provide all that value to the capitol district.

  15. DC elites should be happy to house and feed them all. Unless DC elites are racists.

  16. I mean, we have no problem with the idea that it's ok to bus migrants up through Mexico and that once they're here we should let them in - but they shouldn't be bussed a little further?

    Like to the very people who are demanding they be let in - like Reason's DC staff?

  17. It is amazing that the same folks who are concerned about Texas taxpayers paying to bus people to DC are NOT concerned at all about the American taxpayer paying for all the stadiums, hotels, buses, planes being used by Federal Governement to bus people all over the United States. Hypocrite much....

  18. Umm, who's using the law breakers as pawns?

  19. If Texans support this, and oppose Biden's policies, I'm not certain what the problem is using tax payer money to make DC aware of the problem Texas is dealing with.

    1. Even if only 1% of illegal immigrants choose to get on the bus to D.C. it would still be cheaper than the healthcare, education, etc. costs that TX would be on the hook for.

      1. Exactly this. Bus ride +$1,000 still vastly cheaper.

  20. I wouldn't say this writer is entirely useless. You could always pot her, water her and put her in the window.

    1. She would mortify my other plants.

  21. So Abbott sending the illegal border crossers to the people that allowed them in is wrong...but I did not see any article about when Biden flying said illegal border crossers in the middle of the night was wrong. Was Biden committing a crime when his administration knowingly aided those illegal aliens across state lines?

    1. And didn't tell the states or cities they were coming and even tried to hide it from officials in those cities and states.

    2. Helping people cross borders between states is illegal. Helping people cross national borders is charity.

    3. Abbot is aware that he can not send the immigrants against their will and has not said that is what he plans to do. He has said that he will send those willing to go to DC.
      That's a free trip to the midAtlantic and New England states - DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York are all close by in Texas terms. He will get a lot of takers, probably thousands. Maybe he can sell a few on Delaware.

      1. Considering DHS has been dropping them off in cities like Brownsville, Laredo, and El Paso, I'm sure quite a few illegal immigrants will be happy to hop on a bus. (Nothing against those cities, but they're not the kind of places with thousands of jobs available for people for people to work illegally.)

      2. Don't say "he can sell a few"!!!
        Next thing you know it'll be top story on CNN.

  22. I mean. It really sounds like your actual complaint is that this is an effective tactic to make the illegal immigration problem real to those in power. As long as it only effects people living in a place they'll never visit its easy not to care.

    The other commentors are right though. If you're premise about illegal immigration being an unalloyed good was true, you wouldn't be writing this article, but instead be writing an article about how DC residents need to get over themselves and welcome all these new workers with open arms.

  23. Reality check.
    Immigrants come the US through points of entry, with appropriate legal approval and documentation.
    Criminals sneak across a border without documentation.
    OK, Got that?

  24. Another reality check.
    How the hell is it "kidnapping" to transport criminals against their "will"?
    Were the 1/6 peaceful protesters kidnapped on their way to indefinite imprisonment?

    1. ^THIS EXACTLY.... Well Said.

    2. The next thing you know, they're going to be comparing this to the Trail of Tears

  25. Abbott's just trying to keep all the Kyle Rittencasas from being at the wrong peaceful protest at the wrong time.

  26. But "sanctuary" laws in CA which openly require local officials and police to obstruct federal law enforcement are fine I guess.

    1. Leftists are immune to charges of hypocrisy. Because they aren’t human.

  27. When the commentariat on WAPO talk about accepting the illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico, I ask them how many they're willing to house, feed, cloth, educate, and provide health care for.

    Strangely, I never get an answer.

  28. What if we give each of them $5 to get on the bus?

    I’m not a fan of Abbott but he is better than his primary challengers and better than Beto.

  29. My mind is unfolluted by a law school education so I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but

    If "Title 8 of U.S. Code Section 1324(a) states that "any person who… " knowingly transports someone who's entered the country illegally across a state line shall be punished , why would that only apply to the governor of Texas busing illegal border crossers to Washington DC?

    Why wouldn't it also be illegal for whatever arm of the federal government it was that took the illegal border crossers and flew them in the middle of the night to White plains airport in New York?

    Recall that when the president's press secretary was questioned about flying illegal border crossers from Texas to White plains New York in the middle of the night she replied along the lines of it wasn't the middle of the night, it was 5:00 a.m. in the morning. A distinction without a difference I can discern, (although I probably would be able to discern it if my mind had been polluted by a law school education)

  30. We're a joke

    https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1512206104519979011?t=ZAXmkejix3F15pMEoAiOcw&s=19

    'Heartbroken' Ukrainians arrive at Texas-Mexico border claiming asylum

    [Link]

    1. How did the Asylum hearings go in the dozen countries they went through before they got here?

  31. Fiona is a bright young woman and just a tad wet behind the ears. Because of her youth and inexperience I won't beat/berate her unmercifully as I would somebody with more maturity. Fiona has only recently emerged from the cocoon of academia so it is understandable that her brain is still suffering the insults of left wing idiocy. Maybe she will recover. Only time will tell.

    https://www.aicgs.org/by-author/fiona-harrigan/

    1. Fiona is a bright young woman

      What are you basing that on? The one article she's submitted with fifteen different wordings, all using specious logic to demand complete surrender to her ill considered ideology? This garbage?

      1. Fiona probably has an above average IQ ("bright"). What she lacks is wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and charity.

        1. Fiona probably has an above average IQ ("bright").

          Like I said, she sure might, but I haven't seen much evidence of it. Yes, she and an editor can string together sequences of mostly coherent sentences. But I'm not exceedingly impressed with the content of those sentences thus far.

          1. If you read current academic publications, you'll see that producing meaningless word salads is correlated with high IQ, in particular in the social sciences.

      2. She's not the dali girl we had before. Fiona's article lack that woman's tantrum like qualities. So I at least applaud people for cutting her some slack. At least enough to show reason that there is a difference in quality between writers, even if they both believe the same stupid things.

    2. Fiona is a bright young woman and just a tad wet behind the ears.

      Bright young people are the most murderous, most fascist, and most destructive people in society: look at Hitler's Brownshirts and the various communist revolutionaries.

      Fiona's views are reprehensible and the policies she advocates are destructive and tremendously harmful. There is no more excuse for her than for any of the other 20-somethings that have destroyed nations with their words and deeds.

  32. Migrants are every politicians political football, Democrats included. In fact,everyone is a potential political point for politicians and activists.

  33. Legal migration can be good. An endless stream of welfare recipients bribed to vote Dem is not.

    Unless you're a progshit who is completely comfortable bankrupting the nation to score political points, of course.

  34. which consists of thousands of migrants crossing into the United States from Mexico over the Rio Grande.

    Thousands.

    Like one or two thousand, thousands.

    Last saw, 2021 was on pace to have over a million people illegally crossing from Mexico. So I guess a thousand thousands is techincally "thousands", but right from the beginning Fiona is full of shit being slightly disingenuous.

  35. I fail to see the problem.

    Gov Abbott is simply giving DC it's chosen slaves.

    1. You need to learn the lingo. DC is about to be culturally enriched by thousands of hard working immigrants. And any one who objects is a racist.

      The jobs that they take from American born citizens is an illusion, because they are simply doing jobs that Americans don't want to do.

      1. You mean jobs that American's don't want to automate and (a) stop importing low end labor and (b) start deporting it by the tens of thousands. It should be a 25 year no parole offense in this County to apply for a job in this Country if you are not documented. This is about a Marxist revolution and the left doesn't have enough useful idiots to carry it out and succeed.

  36. And the feds are flying them all over the place under cover of darkness, and denying it. Abbott is being up front about what he's doing.

  37. The law you quoted has been blatantly violated by Biden for the last 14 months! I mean seriously how can you write something so stupid?

  38. Given his track record, it isn’t surprising that Abbott would opt for a blusterous anti-migrant spectacle that comes at the expense of Texas taxpayers.

    Busing illegal migrants from Texas to DC saves Texas a ton of money.

    And it isn't an "anti-migrant spectacle", it is unapologetically anti-migrant: if you enter this country illegally, you should be punished; being put on a bus to DC instead is getting off light.

  39. What an utter joke REASN has become.

    They have a single principle, and call it libertarianism: open borders.

    Fuck 'em. Every time I see one of these "Shakia v.2" articles it reinforces my desire to never subscribe or donate to them again.

    1. Cry more snowflake.

      1. Why are you the way that you are?

        At least be original.

  40. I'm sorry, dear, but if you're going to assert that this action is immoral (rather than merely a violation of federal law, like smoking marijuana), you're going to have to tell me who is being hurt by it.

    What, exactly, is the moral reason these refugees should be left to huddle in a state where the government is very obviously hostile to their presence, rather than be assisted in moving to a friendly jurisdiction?

    1. Because annoying the people in the friendly jurisdiction might make them unfriendly!

  41. "a blusterous anti-migrant spectacle that comes at the expense of Texas taxpayers."

    And just who pays for emergence room visits for the uninsured poor? A single visit would cost more than sending a busload to New York. In fact, Texas taxpayers would probably be better off chartering jets.

    1. $8800-ish at retail prices to fill all 44 seats on a Greyhound bus from Austin to NYC. $192 each. I expect that they'd manage a bulk discount. Yeah, an ER visit could easily rack that up.

  42. Is it election time again already? Must be a big caravan coming up. Oh wait, that's too soon. I'm sure it'll show up right in September when early voting starts.

    They're coming for you!

  43. Only he is not using migrants. He is using illegals. If you don't know the definition of an illegal or a e.g. a woman, it's not worth anyone's time talking to a uneducated fool. Ronald Reagan was famous for ignoring fools like this and taking it right to the people, using plain English that a 12 year old could understand.

  44. What's wrong with using them as political pawns? It's not like Abbott is trying to portray them as holocaust victims by claiming they are in locked concentration camps.

    1. Plus, he's saving Biden a lot time he would need to visit the border himself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.