As usual regarding illegal immigration, there is no “other side,” only rationalizations, dishonesty and Trump hate and emotionalism. Still, the Left’s…and the media’s but, you know, same thing… rhetoric response to the happenings at the border over the weekend represented a new low. I may just let my deranged Facebook friends stew in their own hateful craziness for a while, so I avoid snapping and telling them exactly how they are acting, which might be ethical but wouldn’t be civil. Here’s international law and human rights expert Alyssa Milano, former witch and Tony Danza’s daughter on Twitter:
“You tear-gassed women and children, asswipe! And on Thanksgiving weekend, you piece of shit, asshole, motherfucking, evil-creature-person!!”
Now, I count at least five ways this is unforgivably moronic (It’s not unforgivable to be a moron, but it is unforgivable to make moronic statements in public), but maybe you can find more that five. It is also, except for its exact choice of words, pretty much the same level of logic as most of my lawyer friends on Facebook: yes, they have been reduced by Trump-hate to the abysmal level of a washed-up celebrity with (I think) a high school education.
One: women who break the law and participate in violent attacks on law enforcement officials are as legitimate targets of non-lethal response as men. Funny how feminism evaporates when it is convenient to the feminist.
Two: Using children as human shields is child abuse, and essentially what sops like Millan are arguing is that an adult with a child should be subjected to different law enforcement standards and more lenient ones than anyone else. Wrong. Also unworkable. Also stupid. There were pictures coming out of yesterday’s chaos of men holding up toddlers as literal shields. Nice. By all means, Alyssa, let’s make that an effective tactic.
Three: Democrats, reporters and Facebook sillies were using “gassed” to describe tear-gassing as if the U.S. was breaking the Geneva convention with chemical weapons. Tear gas and pepper spray are legal, useful, necessary alternatives to deadly force in riot situations. My college classmates were subjected to tear gas twice while I was in college, and deserved it.
Four: Wait, did I miss the new law that says that violent illegal immigrants get a pass on a holiday they don’t acknowledge? Or the one that says that other laws are suspended on Thanksgiving? Or the one that says that besieged law enforcement officials are supposed to throw stuffing and cranberry sauce at their attackers?
As for Five, I offer this to Alyssa and any other hypocrite who had no complaints when this was going on, but who now excoriate Trump in vulgar terms: this link, where we find,
Border Patrol: crowd confronts agents
A group of about 100 people trying to illegally cross the border Sunday near the San Ysidro port of entry threw rocks and bottles at U.S. Border Patrol agents, who responded by using pepper spray and other means to force the crowd back into Mexico, federal officials said.
The incident has raised concerns among advocates on both sides of the immigration debate, as well as Border Patrol representatives.
Immigrant-rights groups in San Diego said they didn’t know beforehand about the plan to rush the border, and they worry that desperation is driving homeless deportees to make a bold bid to rejoin their families in the United States.
Border-security groups see this situation as evidence that the border remains unsecured, something they said should be fixed before Congress considers proposals to grant legal status to unauthorized immigrants.
And Border Patrol representatives worry that Sunday’s confrontation could be a political protest, which they said agents want to avoid — especially when it involves the potential for loss of life.
The incident occurred about a quarter-mile west of the San Ysidro border crossing in the Tijuana River channel. No one was seriously injured, no shots were fired and no arrests were made, said Mary Beth Caston, a Border Patrol spokeswoman.
The group first approached a lone agent stationed about 1/8 of a mile north of the border. They ignored his commands to stop, so he fired pepper balls to try to stop them and protect himself, Caston said.
As the crowd kept advancing and throwing rocks and bottles, she said, more agents came to the scene and used other “intermediate use-of-force devices” to push back the group. The agents also contacted Mexican law enforcement.
…Caston said several agents were struck in the arms and legs with rocks, and that one agent was hit in the head with a filled water bottle.
“While attacks on Border Patrol agents are not uncommon, the agents showed great restraint when faced with the dangers of this unusually large group, and fortunately no one was serious injured,” said Paul Beeson, San Diego sector chief for the Border Patrol….
This type of rush on the border has not been seen since the late 1980s and early ’90s, when groups of border-crossers would run into the U.S. while agents tried to apprehend as many people as possible. The practice mostly disappeared after Operation Gatekeeper began in 1994 and brought with it tall fences, walls and more agents.
“If it was a protest, it was a really stupid way to go about it because there were individuals who started throwing rocks and other projectiles,” said Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council. “It’s not the right venue; agents do not enact legislation, don’t write laws or write polices. If protesters want to address Congress and try to change laws, so be it.”
Local border-security advocates were on edge Monday about the incident.
“Obviously, these attempted mass crossing and attacks on our border agents show that our border is not secure,” said Jeff Schwilk of the San Diegans for Secure Borders Coalition. “All the talk in Washington this year of another amnesty for 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants is just encouraging more desperate foreigners to enter our country illegally.”
…The incident raises questions again about how Border Patrol responds in such situations and if it adheres to its use-of-force policies. The agency has not released its policies despite numerous requests to do so after several high profile deaths.
“Because of the growing instances in which Border Patrol has been involved in this sort of use-of-force that it’s important for the agency to be transparent,” Ramirez said. “To report to the public exactly what went on and to report what weapons were used.”
Advocates acknowledge the restraint agents used under the circumstances but they still have concerns given the agency’s recent decision to continue to use deadly force against rock throwers. This despite an outside review that recommended the agency rethink that approach.
On Monday, a group of congressional members sent a letter to the agency asking for more clarity regarding use-of-force policies.
Note the date: November 25, 2013. But Obama was President, so never mind. Note also that this “unusually large group” was tiny compared to yesterday’s mob. If Alyssa and the other Trump critics ignored this episode–and you know they did–I don’t care to hear their complaints now. They have no integrity nor consistent standards. They are ethically estopped from calling this President “evil” when they worshiped the ground Obama walked on. I’m just waiting to hear if Obama himself has the gall to criticize the border actions yesterday. I wouldn’t put it past him.
Do drop that link on your Facebook friends. Let me know how they try to distinguish it. It should be a hoot.
Senator Lindsay Graham concisely wins the argument with this tweet:
You have to really hate President @realDonaldTrump to not understand the problems created by the caravans. He is right to push back in order to deter future waves of illegal immigration.
Well, either hate President Trump or be incapable of rational thought or historical perspective, and favor open borders, which is an express ticket to national destruction.
The fans of the “caravan” rioters were doubtless moved by the pleas and protestations from members of the mob, endless variations on, “I’m pregnant and poor, and all I want is a better life for my children!” “We are not criminals! We are good workers!” “We are fleeing poverty and violence in our country!” Rationalizations all. I wonder how many self-proclaimed “good workers,” poor pregnant mothers and victims of poverty there are around the world? If one can enter the U.S. without following law and process, then they all should be able to. This is simple Kant.
There is no “other side” to the controversy, only rationalizations, dishonesty and Trump-hate and emotionalism.
36 thoughts on “The Nauseating Caravan Apologists”
I am waiting for a federal judge to rule that the President is not allowed to prevent the ‘caravan’ from entering the US and that we must open the border to all who wish to enter. I am waiting for this judge to order Border Patrol to stand down. It may seem ridiculous, but a Hawaii judge overruled the President on travel restrictions because they would hurt Hawaii tourism and she was suspicious of the President’s motives, so this seems just as likely. It used to be there had to be some Constitutional reason for a judge to overrule an executive action. Now, the judge just has to dislike it. Lots of judges dislike this action.
I really think the only way Trump can stop this is to get Congress to declare war on Honduras. Then, these people can be correctly identified as invaders and stopped. Also, all Hondurans already here illegally could be removed from the country. This would have the added benefit of strengthening Trump’s hand when dealing with Mexican illegal immigration. Of course, the Mexicans might WANT us to declare war on them. We could then use our military to take out their cartels for them and remove a great source of crime and instability in their society.
The President has the power to close the borders. That one I guarantee the Supreme Court will uphold.
Yes, the executive power over the borders will be upheld…in 6 months to a year. How long did it take to reverse the Hawaii judges order? Until then, there will be a judicial order to have open borders. In addition, the Supreme Court is unlikely to actually reverse the order. They aren’t going to rule that all Hondurans who came through illegally during that time period can be immediately deported, those here illegally will be grated years of hearings, benefits, and legal guidance. Then, there will be the calls to grant them amnesty and citizenship.
The current estimate of illegal aliens in this country ranges from 12 million (unlikely) to 50 million people (equally as unlikely). It may be approaching the number of US federal taxpayers in just a few years. Forty years of bleeding hearts unwilling to enforce immigration laws have brought us to this point.
This is destabilizing the whole country. If you don’t think they are voting, you are kidding yourself. If you don’t think they collect government benefits, you are kidding yourself. One of my in-laws has been signing illegal aliens up for Medicare and Medicaid. He says they qualify for a lot of the supplemental coverage at no extra cost that US citizens have to pay for. He is disgusted by it, but that is what he was told the policies are and his company gets a cut of every policy they write. Free policies are the easiest ones to sell.
Jack Marshall wrote, “The President has the power to close the borders. That one I guarantee the Supreme Court will uphold.”
By the time the SCOTUS get’s a hold of it, won’t it be too late?
I fear this treads into constitutional crisis time if a court actually orders the borders open. Do you think rank and file border agents will walk away and just let people flood across the border? I think many will think long and hard about their oath of office and have a hard time accepting the judge’s order as lawful.
No, that’s exactly the kind of issue where SCOTUS can and does move fast. First it would stay the lower court’s adverse action, and then it would rule on the merits.
Jack Marshall wrote, “No, that’s exactly the kind of issue where SCOTUS can and does move fast. First it would stay the lower court’s adverse action, and then it would rule on the merits.”
That’s the kind of knowledge I was obviously lacking. I’ll store that in the memory banks.
Except that Kagan is the Justice that handles the Ninth Circuit. At least it is not Sotomayor. If the issue goes first to Kagan, you would hope that she would have the sense to stay it until the full court can act.
Kagan is a fair and excellent Justice. I trust her.
“…the Mexicans might WANT us to declare war on them…”
We invaded once, and should have stayed. If we do again, here are my suggestions:
We don’t stop this time until we control the entire country.
We take over the nationalized oil, telecom, and electrical industries and run them right.
We enforce OUR laws in Mexico.
We build a wall on the southern Mexican border.
Pipe dreams, I know.
The real source of instability is the corruption of the patron political system, which has been a problem for hundreds of years.
Unfortunately, our policy of looking the other way when illegal immigrants unlawfully enter the USA, thanks to cynical politicians who want more voters for their party and various business interests who want cheap labor has created this monster. Trump will undoubtedly wind up becoming unpopular as Herbert Hoover was during the depression if he continues allowing the Border Patrol to use tear gas and makes it clear that “migrants” who use violence will be subject to lethal force.
But of course Obama could do the same with impunity.
I don’t think so. I think the majority of the public is behind this.
Bingo. I don’t think anyone who voted for him has one bit of a problem with how the border patrol reacted.
And many people who didn’t vote for him. Like me.
Jack Marshall wrote, “And many people who didn’t vote for him. Like me.”
For jack and Z, but anyone can answer.
Interesting side question, for my curiosity only: would you vote for him today? Why or why not?
for himagainst Hillary, but would vote for Trump today based on:
1. The actions of the Democrats since election day
2. The tax break
3. The economy
4. American earning respect on the International stage (NK, Europe, etc.)
slickwilly wrote, “Interesting side question, for my curiosity only: would you vote for him today? Why or why not?”
Here is how I choose to answer that:
Here is how I voted in November 2018 went; I walked into my polling place, checked in, got my ballot, walked to the voting booth, marked every Republican candidate that was on the ballot, I did not vote for any non-Republicans even if they were the only person running for the office. I literally voted against every non-Republican on the ballot.
I have never voted like that my entire adult life, I’ve always voted for the person I thought would be the best choice for the office from the candidates on the ballots regardless of political party. My votes have crossed political lines for a long, long time until now. This is the direct result of all the anti-Republican propaganda, I am that cornered animal lashing out against the political left’s propaganda machine and I’m doing so with my vote.
Unless something very dramatic happens before the election in 2020, that is exactly how I will vote again. The political left want’s everyone to vote against and not for anything, well they got their wan and I’m voting against them!
So mostly number 1 on my list. Good response. (Any dialog is good, here: I am interested in viewpoints)
I could never vote for Trump. My position is that Presidents, and elected leaders generally, must be trustworthy, must be ethical, must be good role models, and must have exceptional character. His policy successes and certain admirable traits don’t overcome that, and can’t.
As long as Democrats continue their tragic drift toward anti-Democracy, restriction of speech and other civil rights, promotion of racial and gender division, anti-Americanism and totalitarianism, I won’t vote for anyone in that party either. If a trustworthy leader with moderate, pro-American views and a record of integrity ran as a Democrat, I would reconsider. There is not one on the horizon, and I can’t even think of one who isn’t dead.
If Bill Clinton weren’t a sociopath, I might vote for him. If I had antlers, I might be an elk.
I understand your point. I support your right to such a position, as it is rational, well thought out, and ethical.
I actually thought as you do for decades. I voted on candidates (especially locally) and not parties. A great many conservatives thought so as well.
This usually resulted in the most unethical candidate winning, with either in a slimy big-business Republican, or a plain slimy Democrat winning. Both were Establishment Elites, out to line their own pockets at my expense. What else could I do?
After the Obama era, my thinking changed. I understand that progressives hate me, personally, in every aspect I can imagine: I am not human, and thus should be exterminated. I am not allowed to have a different opinion, and even adopting progressive kant means I must hate myself for reasons I cannot control, and must vote against my own self interest.
Therefore, I vote for whatever fights back against progressives the best, and right now, that is Trump. He may be using progressive tactics against them, but no one on the GOP side fights back, at all.
Want to fix the Immigration problem?
Let’s take a look at the wayback machine… to 2009, when illegal immigrants self deported due to jobs and benefits drying up.
Why do most come? Benefits and Jobs. How do we stop it?
Arrest and imprison the CEOs who allow their companies to hire illegals under the table. Establish a fiduciary responsibility that goes from supervisor all the way to the Board. Make the sentences have teeth, like a year in the pen for each instance, each illegal worker, each month they were here, or some such. Mandatory sentencing for US citizens who facilitate such jobs.
Of course, we would need a statute of limitations and time to implement (say 6 months), or Trump might really be in danger of jail…
I suggest that every moron who wants ‘open borders’ become legal sponsors for at least one of the mass of would-be immigrants who — despite how awful our country is — somehow want to live here. Put your f—ing money where your mouth is — along with your time, your home, your family, and your safety.
Or, just shut up and let the law work the way it’s supposed to work.
E2 wrote, “I suggest that every moron who wants ‘open borders’ become legal sponsors for at least one of the mass of would-be immigrants…”
That argument won’t work with the socialist minded Progressives, that’s a win for those people! If they are allowed to sponsor the migrants the migrants get in the USA and they are getting exactly what they want – open borders. AS soon as they move in they’ll move out and they’ll get lost in the population or government can take care of them just as they planned in the first place.
Remember if you’re against open orders you’re a racist and probably a fascist.
I wonder how many people who oppose open borders will say, “Then Let Me be Racist.”
The Stormfront White Nationalist community will gain a lot of recruits if this trend continues.
Bullshit. I am not about to join a militia, and most Americans cannot be bothered. We will just lie to pollsters who we suspect will abuse us, and take out our resentment a the ballot box.
All the trope ‘Then let me be racist’ means is that I no longer give them power over me with those words: they mean nothing, and are no reflection on my character. It robs them of the power they expect to get from calling names.
From a “hard” news story in the Boston Herald today (11/27) from the AP: “Trump has repeatedly suggested without evidence that the migrant caravans are full of hardened criminals, but they appear to be mostly poor people with few belongings fleeing poverty and violence.”
This is so typical of making an editorial opinion and embedding it in a hard news story, but, of course, their opinion carries far more “weight” than Trump despite an attack on the border agents, hurling objects, and literally attempting mob rule.
Left Twitter produced the stupidest hot take on this discussion pretty quickly:
Funny how Nixon takes the blame for Kennedy and Johnson.
What “blame?” Tear gas is a non-lethal crowd control tool, and has been used by law enforcement involving civilians in ALL administrations since the 1920s.
The Left likes to demonize it and blur the distinctions between poison gas and tear gas because the Left does most of the rioting, here and elsewhere.
I am guessing that the reference of 1961-1971 has something to do with Vietnam (agent orange or something). At any rate, naming Nixon for that time period, instead of Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon, suggests bias on the part of Rashid.
I took that as a reference to the tear gas use in campus riots during the Viet Nam era. Agent Orange wasn’t a poison gas, and was used on crops, not people; neither was Napalm.
And why worry about bias? He’s an idiot and a liar. Tear gas is not “chemical warfare.”