Let me get this straight. It turns out that most of the groups dedicated to helping migrants don't actually object to red state governors busing them to other states. They don't even really object all that much to migrants being dropped off in freezing weather in Washington DC. They won't be there for long anyway.
Mostly they object to Texas and other states doing this without coordinating with anyone. If they did, advocates say, the buses would be a good way of getting migrants where they want to be. That's generally why they're on the buses in the first place.
As for dropping them off in front of Kamala Harris's official residence, that's obviously just juvenile partisan grandstanding. But that wasn't the intention in the Christmas Eve case. The buses were supposed to go to New York but were rerouted due to cold weather and closed roads.
I don't even know if this makes things better or worse. It turns out that with only minimal effort these red state governors could make their migrant busing programs into a win for everyone, but they still won't do it. They want it to seem callous and ugly, the same way they deny Medicaid expansion for poor people even when it's practically free.¹
Cruelty may or may not be the point, but the appearance of cruelty sure is.
¹In fact, when you count all the costs it's less than free. Most states literally lose money by turning down Medicaid expansion.
If we didn't have Republicans, Jesus wouldn't have been born in a manger.
ouch...
I've been wondering about this situation. Is there no federal aid or coordination to distribute these migrants throughout the US? I know next to nothing about the topic, but, it's a national challenge, and it seems both unfair to the people in border areas—as well as inefficient—not to operate some kind of national program to help these people resettle in various parts of the country.
They'd all want to be "resettled" in California, same as everyone else in the country.
They'd all want to be "resettled" in California, same as everyone else in the country.
I doubt very much that's the case. California has had more domestic out migration than in migration in recent times. I'm not suggesting the federal government would (or could) ever provide free rent indefinitely, which is what would be necessary for all migrants to want to go to California.
California has out migration mainly because it’s super expensive to live there. It certainly isn’t because it lacks jobs or low quality of life or bad weather. (The first two correlate highly with Democratic Party governance: states that lack that generally are in economic decline.)
My buddy's mother makes $50 per hour working on the computer (Personal Computer). She hasn’t had a job for a long, yet this month she earned $11,500 by working just on her computer for 9 hours every day.
Read this article for more details.. https://payathome.blogspot.com/
Why are you flacking for "PantysAtHome" on a tiny "rural" web page that nobody who might fall for this BS would be reading anyway. You are an idiot, "AnnieDuncan".
Excuse you, it’s Annie Dunkin, not Duncan
Undoubtedly inspired by the coffee chain, but our entrepreneurial prophet can likely enlighten us. Annie?
People are being moved legally from the borders to other states all the time. The system is just being overwhelmed at the moment - they can't be processed fast enough. But probably state resources could be used more if the Governors weren't more interested in grandstanding.
Pretty much perfect Christmas Day behavior by self-declared evangelicals. If it were a plot point in a movie you'd say "ridiculous. No one's that obviously evil!"
"Christmas Day behavior". Indeed. They're re-enacting Mary and Joseph being turned away at each and every inn.
It was a disgusting act reflecting all of the opposite values of what the nativity scene in Bethlehem is supposed to portray and teach. People calling themselves Christian are charlatans of faith if they support the busing of migrants to be dropped off in the middle of freezing weather, on Christmas Eve.
For shame.
This is the logical end result of attention-seeking behavior
Anti-immigration people no longer even have a pretense of parroting “they’ll steal our jobs” or “they’re gang members” like back in the golden days of the 2010s. Stopping border crossings has become an end unto itself, for no obvious reason that I can ascertain. Its amazing and so so stupid to behold
The obvious reason is that they’re brown skinned. If Norway was dumping millions of migrants on Maine, the outrage would be a lot less.
It borders on dangerous negligent behavior; the temperatures were, are, and will be deadly until later this week. This is how exactly government is NOT supposed to act.
" In fact, when you count all the costs it's less than free. Most states literally lose money by turning down Medicaid expansion."
Ethics aside, I have seen a Texas study that disputes the free Medicaid expansion: further, it would require Texas to introduce a state income tax. I don't know who is correct, but its far from a universally accepted fact that Medicaid expansion is free...
Even if it did cost something substantial, refusing Medicaid expansion is inexcusable. I find it hard to believe though, that it costs states much if anything. Most healthcare spending is local and most of it goes to wages. Those wages generate revenue for the state whether thru income taxes or sales taxes. Remember that the state is only putting up 10% of the cost.
Anyway, this article says that the experience of states where the matter has been investigated, is that expanding Medicaid has saved them more than it costs.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-expansion-continues-to-benefit-state-budgets-contrary-to-critics-claims
but its far from a universally accepted fact that Medicaid expansion is free...
There's a nine to one federal state match. Back of envelope math: Medicaid expansion in Texas would cost about $7 billion. That implies a net subsidy to Texas from federal coffers exceeding $6 billion. Once you consider multiplier effects on the wider economy, it's pretty likely Texas's share ($700 million) would indeed be paid for. Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Texas must introduce a state income tax to come up with a measly $700 million, but I'd recommend being skeptical of claims emanating from right wing circles.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/21/texas-medicaid-insurance/
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/may/impact-medicaid-expansion-states-budgets
"To date, 26 states, including Washington, have accepted the expanded Medicaid program under the ACA."
This is from Washington Policy Center back in 2014!
Washington definitely does not have state income tax.
Well here’s a citation for a Texas study that concludes that costs would be very little: https://bush.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/V11-12_Texas_Medicaid_Expansion_Takeaway-new.pdf
The study cites further sources. Took seconds to find on Google.
New Hampshire has had Medicaid expansion since 2014, and yet has no income tax. Nor a sales tax, inheritance tax or tax on capital gains. In fact, the overall state tax burden is lower than Texas’. Lower. (Wikipedia).
So post your citations, if you have them, or go back to your dead armadillos.
Failing to expand Medicaid also results in more rural and small urban hospitals going under. I don’t know what the economic impact is for that - if the state technically saves money by having the only hospitals be huge city ones - but I imagine it’s still negative (as everyone in the hinterlands has to either be transported to a big city or dies and stops paying taxes, buying stuff, etc.
It's a far from universally accepted fact that evolution is a thing. But you already knew exactly what that turn of phrase meant, and you used it with deliberate intent and malice aforethought. And as always, protestestations aside, a troll is as a troll does.
I have made many visits to Texas over the last few years, particularly Houston. If one thing is clear, it's that they hate government spending. A side-by-side comparison of city streets with the equivalent in California makes that clear.
It's not that they don't ever do it. There are some things they do with freeways that are really good ideas, and the freeways seem really well maintained.
But I think the "we don't want to spend the money" is legit. There are certain kinds of trouble you can get into with that philosophy (ERCOT I'm looking at you).
Of course, there's the whole "You can't make me!" part of it which is juvenile, much like the celebrations over Abbot's latest immigrant stunt.
For the Republicans, it seems they run on cruelty, both to their base and for their base. They need their base angry to keep them from thinking clearly. They have to make government fail so they can run against governance. How to channel their base's anger into support? They need someone to blame. And performative violence.
The INS is severely underfunded, especially the part that's supposed to deal with asylum seekers. At that was before Trump broke the system.
What was being done was asylum seekers would be processed locally then handed off to non-profit organizations who would provide temporary shelter until the could arrange some transportation to help them get to where they wanted to go, typically meeting up with a friend or relative. Some claims could be adjudicated quickly, and then deportation back to the their home country could be arranged. There were also foreign aid programs designed to stem migration.
Every aspect of that has been broken, and it will take years to clean up if funding is provided. It would also need a change in culture at the INS and border patrol. When Obama was president, he had agents focus on immigrants who were committing violent crimes and see that they were punished and deported. I remember reading that the agents were upset because they had to deal with violent people. Under Trump, agents were literally tearing families apart, and many of them were still supporting Trump for president. Apparently some rationalize it as "tough love".
Good summary, and thanks!
In defense of the soulless monsters at INS, it *is* easier to strip children from their parents than it is to confront murderers and drug dealers who lack documentation. And as we all know, the primary goal of all law enforcement is “be able to go home at the end of the day” not “make the country a better place to live.”
I dunno, I kind of thing the point is “owning the Libs”. If it takes being callus and ugly then so be it. The most important thing is making us upset. They just don’t care who it hurts to do so, even if it’s themselves.
Dropping the Venezuelan documented asylum seekers in front of the Veep's house was not intentional? Yeah, and did you know the Brooklyn Bridge has come on the market?
The normal DC dropoff place has been Union Station. That's where the Abbott (who sure needs his Costello) buses could have, and should have, gone. That's where volunteers were waiting for the immigrants. But NOOOOO! Gotta tar the Veep, not merely a Democrat, but an uppity woman -- of color!!
The cruelty is the point. That, and pwning the Libz. Folks on the MAGARepublican side cheer; lefties rush to bring those poor people in from the cold, feed and clothe them, and then get their information and where they were trying to go. Then they buy them bus tickets so they can get there.
Yeah, and that's "woke". It's everything your MAGARepub hates. And he's the "Christian", at least in his own mind.
+1
"Most states literally lose money by turning down Medicaid expansion."
Good.
How can you "own the Libs" when you're using Texas taxpayer dollars to move migrants past the very border walls you've established and paid for to keep them out? Hmmm.
I've got news for Abbot and Company, one doesn't start a diet by shooting themselves in the stomach
"I've got news for Abbot and Company, one doesn't start a diet by shooting themselves in the stomach"
Hush, you. Let's wait for the results of the medical studies. Maybe Dr. Oz can find volunteers and run it. /s
Am I misreading Kevin's post because it sure seems like he is saying some of the immigrants were re-routed to the house of the Vice President due to weather, which is, obviously BS.
I do agree that the blue states are OK with receiving immigrants from border states if there is coordination between the states.