Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Elephant on the Border
As I watch the coverage of President Trump’s efforts to secure the border and Democrat-Republican efforts to thwart any effective form of Border Security*, I’m struck by the fact in the mainstream media, the simple fact that Democrats (and a lot of Republicans) oppose Border Security because they want the uncontrolled migration of cheap labor and loyal Democrat voters from Central America (and, increasingly, Africa and the Middle East) to continue unabated. This is, in fact, the central issue of illegal immigration and opposition to Border Security, but you never hear it brought up on CNN, NBC, ABC, or even Fox News nor on the pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. Why is that?
The pundits obfuscate the issue by talking about “asylum seekers” (without mentioning that migrants can apply for asylum without leaving their home countries, much less illegally rushing the border), but more often, any discussion on the issue is limited to “Trump wants to stop immigration because he is a racist and Democrats oppose a Border Wall because they are not racists.” That is the current intellectual depth of the average network discussion on the topic.
It just seems to me you can’t have a full and honest discussion about the issues of illegal immigration and border security without discussing the motivations of politicians who support the former and oppose the latter.
* Now, Democrats will claim, “We support putting cameras on the border, so it’s unfair to say we want open borders.” But cameras at the border are as useless as a California Republican. To make an analogy, it’s as though someone owned a liquor store in a bad neighborhood and was getting robbed every night. His city tells him, “You can’t lock up your store at night, but you can install security cameras.” So, he installs cameras to take pictures of the guys robbing his liquor store. But the city refuses to arrest or prosecute them because “People have a moral right to rob liquor stores.” That’s pretty much the situation with illegal immigration. Cameras at the border are similarly useless.
Published in General
Amen! Couldn’t have said it better!
Senate GOP favored the poison-pill-laden spending bill, while the House GOP did not.
The way that Paul Ryan managed to delay and delay this issue until the Dems took over and he retired was masterful (if you are opposed to border security). The GOP elected officials have almost completely lost their way on this issue. They campaign on fencing/wall/security and then NEVER actually pass anything.
Perhaps so. But I think you’d agree with this:
If someone is trying to persuade you to change your position on a highly emotional and controversial issue, he is more likely to succeed if he does not do that. If he does not question your motives, but instead tries to persuade you that his position is right.
If the facts are on your side, it is easier to persuade someone that your position is objectively better, than to convince him that he is a bad person.
I hope this is not off-topic to say that I think you are right, but it’s not really so because
most peoplehalf the voting public really doesn’t care about issues but do vote by other standards. My grandmother, who was a smart, savvy, independent, intelligent, well-educated, hard-working woman voted for Nixon because she liked his wife, and thought she was a very nice person.She apparently knew the issues (and apparently even was aware, for example, of Pearl Harbor before the attack, and said so, because of rumors swirling around the Japanese embassy, that made it to her ear in the 24 hours before the attack) but didn’t care unless it affected her social circle.
People are crazier than anybody.
And on repealing ObamaCare.
Let’s not forgive the GOP bastards who kept that monstrosity alive.
VTK, what’s the story of your handle? I recognize cold war NATO slang for Soviet subs.
If the caravan members were indeed asylum seekers, they would have been eager to enter the USA via the TX border, New Mexico border, or AZ border. But funny thing, they all avoided the shorter treks to any of those three states, and proceeded to Calif, where our Supreme Court stated that any individual arriving from south of the border must be offered up AFDC, food stamps, med insurance and housing vouchers if they show up at Social Services and state they are penniless. And they do not need any ID to do that either.
I also feel like I am inside a most Orwellian reality due to the following: A week ago, the TV news out of Sacramento and SF stations informed me how there was no border crisis. However, then last night, fearing he will lose control over the sanctuary state’s border, Gov. Newsom gave a hasty interview in which he insisted that he had wisely installed the National Guard (NG) at Calif’s southern border as he was totally up to handling the situation. (And how dare the President upend states’ rights!) Immediately the news cameras panned over to footage of some half a dozen National Guard members walking on the US side of the border.
Apparently the feedback from the actual public, showing some 62 to 72% of all Americans now support the President regarding the border/immigrant controversy is making the Big Wigs in Dem Party re-think how they present things to the public. Not that I believe for a moment that they are changing their stance one bit. As usual it is all for show.
Your last statement makes a great deal of logical sense, but since so many people on the New Left are emotionally driven, how do you get across the idea that your position is objectively better? Emotionally driven people have no sense of objectivity – in fact, to them the entire notion is anathema. You and I must either accept the new enlightened political/religious belief that every single individual person who grew up south of the border is more deprived and therefore more worthy of being here than anyone born inside this nation. (Except for them of course, as their ideals and virtue signaling make them the equal of the newly sainted members of the immigrant community.)
And of course, I am not making the idea of “Racism,” or “Hitler” a central part of the discussion, but they go to those arguments the moment that someone presents them with objectivity.
Unless that person you are trying to convince is just a lying SOB.
Might have phrased that “has other motives you can’t discern.” But yeah.
Thanks for the advice. But I am not auditioning for the United Nations.
Maybe their real objective is just to complain about imaginary racism.