Texas shut down a border crossing

[busymom]

Good Lord!  We've got people falling through the ice into freezing water in our state right now.  Am I supposed to yell out, "Hey, are you a citizen?"  before I attempt to help them?  I can't even begin to understand why someone wouldn't at least try to help someone in trouble.  Burning car?  House on fire?  Flooding community?  So, some "Christians" no longer will help unless they look exactly like me?  You're supposed to help anyone in an emergency NOW, and figure out the details later.  


We just had a major house fire in our state where most of the children died. A whole bunch of firefighters arrived & pulled out the entire family.  Guess what?  Those firefighters were white.  The children were not.  But, the firefighters gave every victim CPR, and at least TRIED to help.  THAT's what all of us should be doing anytime someone is in trouble.  Not look the other way and pretend like we don't see it.  

[djAdvocate]

here is what gets me.

people travel here 2000 miles on foot. that is at least three months of walking. you get to Brownsville or whatever, and try to seek asylum into the US, and the state officials stand there while you and possibly your kids drown in the river.

tragic doesn't even come close to encapsulating that.

we should really cut the Statue Of Liberty into refrigerator magnets.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Jan 14, 2024 11:08:36 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

The lack of humanity in conservatives is stunning. Refusing to help someone in trouble? Clearly they have no conscience

Maybe Texas is training/conditioning its personnel to be like the gestapo and the stasi?

[teen persuasion]

Jan 14, 2024 16:37:44 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jan 14, 2024 11:08:36 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

The lack of humanity in conservatives is stunning. Refusing to help someone in trouble? Clearly they have no conscience

It’s all about punishing the guilty.

Try to sneak into the country, you deserve to drown. Have sex when not married, you deserve to struggle to feed and house your kids. Choose an ungodly lifestyle (gays or trans) you need to be punished by being fired from your job, denied healthcare, and harassed by the community.

If you live the right kind of lifestyle and obey all the laws that are important to them, they will do whatever they can do to help you.

There was a thread on Twitter today about a NY Post article that Gen Z workers are "entitled" and are unprepared for the workforce. Nearly every reply mentioned that they were just rerunning the 10,000th version with find/replace for all past gens (Millenials, X, Boomers...). But one guy's replies really resonated with me:

Right-leaning biased reporting will *always* scrutinize those on the bottom of [social] hierarchy (those who are expected to obey policy) for disrespecting hierarchy, and will *always* praise those on top (those who make policy) as hierarchy dictates.

It's not hypocrisy; it's hierarchy.

The pillar and cornerstone of conservatism is hierarchy, where every basic right that would be denied to those on the bottom is given in exaggerated privilege to those on top.

To a conservative, the second-greatest injustice is for those on the bottom to receive privileges reserved for those on top. The first greatest injustice is for those on top to receive the treatment/scrutiny/restrictions reserved for those on the bottom.
Conservatism is all about giving privileges and resources to those who always had such, and denying rights and resources to those who never had such. Egalitarianism is radical to those who believe "some people are more people than others" and everyone should "know their place".

This viewpoint makes everything the MAGAs do, make sense in a warped way. Totally foreign to me, but it all falls into place.

ETA: Forgot to give the guy's Twitter handle: ShidoOhtori

[djAdvocate]

that nails it.

but keep in mind, that this is not really "conservatism". it is ELITISM. and yes, it has been this way forever. and yes, many Republicans, and a fair number of Democrats, particularly those in positions of authority, feel this way (even if they will NEVER admit it publicly, privately, or in some cases, even to themselves).

the TRUTH of our situation is that the bottom 50% are getting fucked. that is the vast majority of black and brown people and disproportionately women. if we could organize along lines of common grievance, we would have wild political victories (not to paraphrase Trump). but instead, the ELITE use wedge issues to drive us apart and keep us fighting each other, and siding with the ELITE. it has been a remarkably successful strategy, culminating in the person of Trump.

2024 is not going to bring us back together. instead, we will probably pry off just enough of the moderates to join Biden in averting the brewing catastrophe known as Trump. but the differences will remain, which means that the threat of Trump or someone like him will remain as long as the wedge divides us.

[scgal]

Jan 15, 2024 10:12:13 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 15, 2024 9:27:04 GMT -5 scgal said:

It is not about compassion or helping we are talking about a clear and simple question is the 2 mile stretch a legal point of entry or no. If someone is breaking the law you do not help them to circumvent the law. That is why we are in the situation we are in. 

Please try not to do the leap and stretch what about this or if that crap stay on topic

I'm not agreeing with anything you wrote here. But I do have a question, how is rescuing a drowning immigrant helping them circumvent the law? You can't be charged with illegal entry to the US because you are here legally. You did nothing at all to help them get here. So what really do you think you are "helping" them with?

So, say the ugly part out loud because here in the recent land of flooding rivers fire departments have rescued AH young kids driving out while there are emergency warnings of no travel unless necessary. So, for added points please explain why it was OK to waste my tax money on saving these lives but if I was down there as just me, costing no one anyone tax dollars, and saved an immigrant from drowning. IT is a BAD thing per you.

OK just to clarify-- first I never said do not try to rescue them.. I said we are under no obligation to help them which means its ok if we don't...Second I never said let them drown.. I said if they do drown trying to get here that is on them there is a big difference.

So the uguly part you are talking about yes it is ok to try to save these lives, they are already in the us.

[scgal]

Jan 15, 2024 14:10:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 15, 2024 7:01:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Is the 2 mile stretch a legal point of entry if yes they should welcome them if not. It is ok to turn them away. If anyone drowns trying to come here illegally (meaning not thru an legal point) then that is on them we are under no obligation to use our resources to help

it is actually a violation of international law.

which should make sense to everyone, here.

I've been searching I cannot find a law that states we have to help a person who is trying to enter the country illegally. 

[pulmonarymd]

Texas officials prevented the feds from trying to save them. Is that ok?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 16, 2024 9:09:39 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 15, 2024 10:12:13 GMT -5 Opti said:

I'm not agreeing with anything you wrote here. But I do have a question, how is rescuing a drowning immigrant helping them circumvent the law? You can't be charged with illegal entry to the US because you are here legally. You did nothing at all to help them get here. So what really do you think you are "helping" them with?

So, say the ugly part out loud because here in the recent land of flooding rivers fire departments have rescued AH young kids driving out while there are emergency warnings of no travel unless necessary. So, for added points please explain why it was OK to waste my tax money on saving these lives but if I was down there as just me, costing no one anyone tax dollars, and saved an immigrant from drowning. IT is a BAD thing per you.

OK just to clarify-- first I never said do not try to rescue them.. I said we are under no obligation to help them which means its ok if we don't...Second I never said let them drown.. I said if they do drown trying to get here that is on them there is a big difference.

So the uguly part you are talking about yes it is ok to try to save these lives, they are already in the us.

There is nothing you can post here which excuses your past comment: "If anyone drowns trying to come here illegally (meaning not thru an legal point) then that is on them we are under no obligation to use our resources to help."

That comment will always remain as a reminder to your complete lack of humanity.  You wrote it.  You now own it.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 16, 2024 9:42:37 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 15, 2024 14:10:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is actually a violation of international law.

which should make sense to everyone, here.

I've been searching I cannot find a law that states we have to help a person who is trying to enter the country illegally. 

That is not the issue. The issue is you stating the U.S should not use resources to someone who is drowning if they are illegally trying to cross the border be they adults or infants.

The U.S. does have a Good Samaritan law. And some states have a Duty to Rescue law.

Good Samaritan law

Duty to rescue

And taking your rationale to the extreme, we would not be required to treat injured foreign citizens whose plane crashed in the U.S. while flying non-stop say from Montreal, Canada to Mexico City, Mexico. The injured survivors who are not U.S. citizens did not legally enter the United States. And we as a country should ignore all international laws.

[scgal]

Jan 16, 2024 10:43:06 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 16, 2024 9:09:39 GMT -5 scgal said:

OK just to clarify-- first I never said do not try to rescue them.. I said we are under no obligation to help them which means its ok if we don't...Second I never said let them drown.. I said if they do drown trying to get here that is on them there is a big difference.

So the uguly part you are talking about yes it is ok to try to save these lives, they are already in the us.

There is nothing you can post here which excuses your past comment: "If anyone drowns trying to come here illegally (meaning not thru an legal point) then that is on them we are under no obligation to use our resources to help."

That comment will always remain as a reminder to your complete lack of humanity.  You wrote it.  You now own it.

I own it and anything else I ever wrote. It has nothing to do with humanity. If you cannot see that then you are blind

[scgal]

Jan 16, 2024 11:04:12 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 16, 2024 9:42:37 GMT -5 scgal said:

I've been searching I cannot find a law that states we have to help a person who is trying to enter the country illegally. 

That is not the issue. The issue is you stating the U.S should not use resources to someone who is drowning if they are illegally trying to cross the border be they adults or infants.

The U.S. does have a Good Samaritan law. And some states have a Duty to Rescue law.

Good Samaritan law

Duty to rescue

And taking your rationale to the extreme, we would not be required to treat injured foreign citizens whose plane crashed in the U.S. while flying non-stop say from Montreal, Canada to Mexico City, Mexico. The injured survivors who are not U.S. citizens did not legally enter the United States. And we as a country should ignore all international laws.

No I pointed out that we are not obligated to use resourses I did not say we shouldn't. If a state has a good samaritan law good for them it is not a federal law. 

Then the extreme rational proposal is something democrats use well if its this then what if this happens oh you must mean that total bullshit not the same thing.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 16, 2024 12:20:33 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 16, 2024 10:43:06 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

There is nothing you can post here which excuses your past comment: "If anyone drowns trying to come here illegally (meaning not thru an legal point) then that is on them we are under no obligation to use our resources to help."

That comment will always remain as a reminder to your complete lack of humanity.  You wrote it.  You now own it.

I own it and anything else I ever wrote. It has nothing to do with humanity. If you cannot see that then you are blind

I has everything to do with humanity. Everything. You simply have lost your humanity.

[happyhoix]

Jan 16, 2024 0:37:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that nails it.

but keep in mind, that this is not really "conservatism". it is ELITISM. and yes, it has been this way forever. and yes, many Republicans, and a fair number of Democrats, particularly those in positions of authority, feel this way (even if they will NEVER admit it publicly, privately, or in some cases, even to themselves).

the TRUTH of our situation is that the bottom 50% are getting fucked. that is the vast majority of black and brown people and disproportionately women. if we could organize along lines of common grievance, we would have wild political victories (not to paraphrase Trump). but instead, the ELITE use wedge issues to drive us apart and keep us fighting each other, and siding with the ELITE. it has been a remarkably successful strategy, culminating in the person of Trump.

2024 is not going to bring us back together. instead, we will probably pry off just enough of the moderates to join Biden in averting the brewing catastrophe known as Trump. but the differences will remain, which means that the threat of Trump or someone like him will remain as long as the wedge divides us.

It’s always amazed me how someone will vote against their own best interests because a callous politician waved abortions or trans people or the war against Christmas in their face.

It’s getting worse. Wages have only barely increased in the last thirty years while every thing else has jumped up. My dad could support his family on one salary. Took DH and I both working to get a comparable lifestyle. Now middle class kids might need to work multiple jobs to stay afloat, while conservatives scold them about not working hard enough.

[busymom]

Jan 16, 2024 12:26:42 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 16, 2024 11:04:12 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

That is not the issue. The issue is you stating the U.S should not use resources to someone who is drowning if they are illegally trying to cross the border be they adults or infants.

The U.S. does have a Good Samaritan law. And some states have a Duty to Rescue law.

Good Samaritan law

Duty to rescue

And taking your rationale to the extreme, we would not be required to treat injured foreign citizens whose plane crashed in the U.S. while flying non-stop say from Montreal, Canada to Mexico City, Mexico. The injured survivors who are not U.S. citizens did not legally enter the United States. And we as a country should ignore all international laws.

No I pointed out that we are not obligated to use resourses I did not say we shouldn't. If a state has a good samaritan law good for them it is not a federal law. 

Then the extreme rational proposal is something democrats use well if its this then what if this happens oh you must mean that total bullshit not the same thing.

    Being a decent human being has everything to do with humanity.  Let me ask you this:  if that was your own child that was drowning, and the authorities refused to help, and your child died, how would you feel?    If you are against your own child dying, then you should be against ANYONE's child dying.  

[scgal]

Jan 16, 2024 12:31:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 16, 2024 12:20:33 GMT -5 scgal said:

I own it and anything else I ever wrote. It has nothing to do with humanity. If you cannot see that then you are blind

I has everything to do with humanity. Everything. You simply have lost your humanity.

No, what I said doesn't. I never said not to, I never debated why we should or shouldn't I said we are under no obligation to help. There is a difference. I try to be a literal person don't try to take my words out of context. I also said if they die or drown getting here it is on them and that is true they took the risk no one else did. It doesn't matter what circumstance they are running from they assume the risk so it is on them. 

[scgal]

Jan 16, 2024 13:04:36 GMT -5 busymom said:

Jan 16, 2024 12:26:42 GMT -5 scgal said:

No I pointed out that we are not obligated to use resourses I did not say we shouldn't. If a state has a good samaritan law good for them it is not a federal law. 

Then the extreme rational proposal is something democrats use well if its this then what if this happens oh you must mean that total bullshit not the same thing.

    Being a decent human being has everything to do with humanity.  Let me ask you this:  if that was your own child that was drowning, and the authorities refused to help, and your child died, how would you feel?    If you are against your own child dying, then you should be against ANYONE's child dying.  

Did I say not to help? I said we are under no obligation to help. I don't want any child to die this country or any other country. I'm pointing out that just because it may seem to be the right thing to do (I will use the word humanity wise since everyone here likes that word) doesn't equate an obligation.

[pulmonarymd]

I will ask again. Were the Texas authorities who prevented the feds from intervening yo save their lives acting correctly? Simple question

[azucena]

Wow, just wow. How far we have fallen. Putting this thread on ignore.

[grumpyhermit]

Jan 16, 2024 13:06:40 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 16, 2024 12:31:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I has everything to do with humanity. Everything. You simply have lost your humanity.

No, what I said doesn't. I never said not to, I never debated why we should or shouldn't I said we are under no obligation to help. There is a difference. I try to be a literal person don't try to take my words out of context. I also said if they die or drown getting here it is on them and that is true they took the risk no one else did. It doesn't matter what circumstance they are running from they assume the risk so it is on them. 

And the fact that you tie obligation to "legal status" is why you are lacking in humanity.

Since you are so literal:

humanity
noun
: compassionate, sympathetic, or generous behavior or disposition : the quality or state of being humane

If you want to argue if it is legal, go wild, but it is in no way humane.

[tbop77]

I'm afraid to ask what would happen if border patrol had defied the state officials and tried to rescue them.  I'm sure the answer would be SHOOT THEM TOO.  

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2024 9:42:37 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 15, 2024 14:10:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is actually a violation of international law.

which should make sense to everyone, here.

I've been searching I cannot find a law that states we have to help a person who is trying to enter the country illegally. 

you don't know if they are entering illegally until you rescue them.

we have already been through this.  you just keep arguing the same point.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2024 12:45:29 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jan 16, 2024 0:37:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that nails it.

but keep in mind, that this is not really "conservatism". it is ELITISM. and yes, it has been this way forever. and yes, many Republicans, and a fair number of Democrats, particularly those in positions of authority, feel this way (even if they will NEVER admit it publicly, privately, or in some cases, even to themselves).

the TRUTH of our situation is that the bottom 50% are getting fucked. that is the vast majority of black and brown people and disproportionately women. if we could organize along lines of common grievance, we would have wild political victories (not to paraphrase Trump). but instead, the ELITE use wedge issues to drive us apart and keep us fighting each other, and siding with the ELITE. it has been a remarkably successful strategy, culminating in the person of Trump.

2024 is not going to bring us back together. instead, we will probably pry off just enough of the moderates to join Biden in averting the brewing catastrophe known as Trump. but the differences will remain, which means that the threat of Trump or someone like him will remain as long as the wedge divides us.

It’s always amazed me how someone will vote against their own best interests because a callous politician waved abortions or trans people or the war against Christmas in their face.

It’s getting worse. Wages have only barely increased in the last thirty years while every thing else has jumped up. My dad could support his family on one salary. Took DH and I both working to get a comparable lifestyle. Now middle class kids might need to work multiple jobs to stay afloat, while conservatives scold them about not working hard enough.

i think this is a great campaign issue, because it won't add one thin dime to the deficit. 

since corporations have pretty much taken themselves out of the tax paying business, the only way to get that money out of them is through wages.  if we DOUBLED the FMW, that would put more TAX MONEY into the system.  in addition it would LOWER our expenses for those that are making sub-living wages, because they could rely on private employment rather than public services.

it is a win-win-win.  it is STUPID that it is not yet a campaign issue, and probably won't be (because corporations are running the show at this juncture).

[ripvanwinkle]

Jan 16, 2024 16:59:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 16, 2024 9:42:37 GMT -5 scgal said:

I've been searching I cannot find a law that states we have to help a person who is trying to enter the country illegally. 

you don't know if they are entering illegally until you rescue them.

we have already been through this.  you just keep arguing the same point.

Ummm...helloooo. The fact that 10,000 people are amassed on the other side of your border without a invite should let anyone with any common sense figure that they are illegal. Does Mexico call these people illegal? I haven't heard or seen anything about Mexico doing anything to stop the mass migration thru their country.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2024 20:17:24 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Jan 16, 2024 16:59:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you don't know if they are entering illegally until you rescue them.

we have already been through this.  you just keep arguing the same point.

Ummm...helloooo. The fact that 10,000 people are amassed on the other side of your border without a invite should let anyone with any common sense figure that they are illegal. Does Mexico call these people illegal? I haven't heard or seen anything about Mexico doing anything to stop the mass migration thru their country.

not at all.  i would assume that such a large group would be refugees.

how would you conclude otherwise?  omniscience?

you are getting dangerously close to ad hominem in this reply, rip.  what we lack here on this board is not common sense.  it is common facts.

Mexico would probably call them migrants.  they are passing THROUGH Mexico.  they are not Mexican citizens, for the most part.  this is another mistake that Americans make.  and you are allowed a TRANSIT VISA if you are traveling through Mexico from Central America, rip.  remember, it only takes a few months to walk from South America to the border.  that is MORE than enough time to get a transit  Visa in any of the neighboring countries.

i might also add, since we seem to keep forgetting this fact, that MOST people arrive in the US on a travel Visa.  that is legal entry.  but we are not talking about that in the case of Venezuelan refugees.  those folks are mos-def asylum seekers.  they have no interest in going back to Venezuela.  they are seeking US citizenship.

just curious- i think you already stated you have nothing against brown people, right?  because this discussion often seems to boil down to that.  you are OK with brown people seeking a better life here, right?  Trump doesn't seem to be, but i am not asking Trump.  i am asking you.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 15, 2024 7:01:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 14, 2024 0:02:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

most of them are from Venezuela.  the situation has gotten VASTLY worse there in the last three years.  are you going to argue that Venezuela is a beautiful place that is devoid of political persecution?

if not, they are probably legitimate asylum seekers and we should welcome them.  Trump was breaking the law keeping them out, imo.  so was Biden.

Is the 2 mile stretch a legal point of entry if yes they should welcome them if not. It is ok to turn them away. If anyone drowns trying to come here illegally (meaning not thru an legal point) then that is on them we are under no obligation to use our resources to help

Even if the children who drowned were eight and ten years of age? The two minor children were with their mother who also drowned.  Minor children just following their adult mother's orders.

Greg Abbott Rebuked by Largest Texas Newspaper Over Migrant Deaths—'Coward'

[busymom]

It is pure evil what happened to those children. (And their mom.)  You don't kill children to make political points.  Of course, should we be surprised since Texas has no problem with harming pregnant women who have serious complications with their pregnancies?  

[scgal]

Jan 16, 2024 13:43:52 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

I will ask again. Were the Texas authorities who prevented the feds from intervening yo save their lives acting correctly? Simple question

Yes they were. They did not say do kit rescue them they just secured an area that the feds were using for weak policy.from what I read they already drowned before us knowing about it. If someone is in distress they should get help thru an approved access point

[Tennesseer]

Jan 17, 2024 11:34:56 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 16, 2024 13:43:52 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

I will ask again. Were the Texas authorities who prevented the feds from intervening yo save their lives acting correctly? Simple question

Yes they were. They did not say do kit rescue them they just secured an area that the feds were using for weak policy.from what I read they already drowned before us knowing about it. If someone is in distress they should get help thru an approved access point

How odd. You are all about saving unborn embroys from abortion but okay with letting children drown.

[pulmonarymd]

Jan 17, 2024 11:34:56 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 16, 2024 13:43:52 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

I will ask again. Were the Texas authorities who prevented the feds from intervening yo save their lives acting correctly? Simple question

Yes they were. They did not say do kit rescue them they just secured an area that the feds were using for weak policy.from what I read they already drowned before us knowing about it. If someone is in distress they should get help thru an approved access point

Unbelievable. If you wind up in trouble, be sure to do it at the appropriate place