the way he opened the borders of our country and allowed hundreds of thousands to migrate here non legally. — jgill

Are there alternatives? Could they be, you know, machine-gunned as they cross the Rio Grande? Seems to me part of US law that America is obliged to offer humane treatment to those who cross its borders. Here's a gift link to a NY Times analysis of the dynamics of illegal immigration. (I very much doubt that it would have been any different under a Republican president, as the article shows, the drivers are systemic, global, and a long time in the making.)

A point to consider is that any undocumented immigrant that arrives in the US or Europe or Australia obtains something that they generally will not have in their country of origin, namely human rights. And a country such as the US that recognises human rights, is obliged to accord these rights to undocumented migrants. To automatically send them back to their country of origin, which in many cases won't even accept them, is to deny their basic human rights, which, for better or worse, the US won't do.

Where did they go? — Paine

Texas, S. Carolina, etc. as far as I recall. Cheaper to live in those states among other amenities.

Are there alternatives? Could they be, you know, machine-gunned as they cross the Rio Grande? — Wayfarer

Your suggestion, not mine. :gasp: I did not realize you have a dark side! I would try to prevent them entering the US by humane means. Perhaps ship them to Australia. My wife spent a year in your country and liked it there.

Your suggestion, not mine — jgill

It was a sarcastic remark, of course, to make a rhetorical point - just how is it to be prevented? Australia did indeed implement harsh measures to 'stop the boats' which became a political slogan in the early oughties, never mind there were far greater numbers of visa overstayers than ever came by boat. But then, Australia is an island, and it's a long way from Africa and Central America.

I suppose what I'm saying is, I don't think the Biden administration bears particular blame for the movement of undocumented immigrants. Sure, it's happening on his watch, and in that sense, he's responsible, but as the NY Times points out, flaws in immigration policy straddles the partisan divide, and Congress has never been able to agree on any kind of solution. There's plenty of blame to go around.

I don't think the Biden administration bears particular blame for the movement of undocumented immigrants — Wayfarer

You are correct. Blame is not his alone. But he did call upon those fleeing their oppressive governments to "Surge the borders" of the US.

And they have.

he did call upon those fleeing their oppressive governments to "Surge the borders" of the US. — jgill

I fact checked this:

Claim: Some conservative commentators and media outlets have made this claim, often citing a speech Biden gave in 2019 where he said, "We can't build a wall high enough to keep out the yearning for freedom." They argue that this statement encourages people to migrate to the US illegally.

Context: Biden's speech was about the need for comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already living in the US. He was not specifically addressing people fleeing oppressive governments. Additionally, the full quote from Biden is: "We can't build a wall high enough to keep out the yearning for freedom. We can't hide behind a wall and pretend the world doesn't exist. We can't focus on the fear of the other instead of the promise of the one." This suggests that Biden is advocating for a more welcoming and inclusive approach to immigration, rather than encouraging illegal border crossings.

Fact-checking organizations including PolitiFact have rated the claim that Biden urged people to surge the border as "Mostly False." They note that Biden's comments were taken out of context and that he has not advocated for illegal immigration.

I'm dissappointed that you are mislead by these types of claims, as you're one of the wiser and more level-headed contributors on this forum.

The “fight like hell” canard is stupid because each time he uses the word in that speech he does so metaphorically. For some reason they take this one, and only this one, as literal. — NOS4A2

So this is your mode of interpretation? Every time the word "fight" is used it is metaphorical, and not meant to conjure up any notions of physical aggression. And if the word "peacefully" happened to be uttered this was meant to quell any such mistaken notions of physical aggression aroused by repeated use of the "fight" word.

OK, I see very clearly why Trump followers like yourself, are so gullible. You have no capacity to see the true intentions behind deceptive speech.

A reasonable person could go to a transcript of his speech, pick out one of the twenty-odd times he uses the word “fight”, and show how he is being literal, that he’s talking about actually fighting, like everyone who quotes “fight like hell” wants you to believe. But you wouldn’t do that, would you? That’s why all you credulous Russia hoaxers learned to spread so much disinformation, because you can’t help to follow and spread what’s given to you, and for no other reason that it is given to you.

That's the way Trump works. He urges you, the Trump supporter, to do his dirty work for him. If it turns out well, he reaps the benefits. If not, then you suffer the consequences. It's like if a mob boss says "It would be a shame if something happened to your nice family." You know it's a threat. But in court, he can say that the literal meaning of his words is that he was being empathetic. So, it isn't about pointing to one instance of Trump's use of a word like "fight" and saying "he was being literal, right here." Trump's speech that day needs to be looked at in the overall context of what was going on at that time. It's not just about the words in that one speech, but also him inviting them to the rally on that particular day after feeding them the lies about the election being stolen over time to get them outraged and primed for violence. Trump didn't tell them precisely to build a gallows to hang Mike Pence with, either, but Trump was indeed the cause of it -- without him saying what he did, that gallows wouldn't be put up and no one would have been roaming the Capitol building chanting "Hang Mike Pence!"

All you need to do to see if the speech is considered incitement is to apply the so-called “Brandenburg Test”. Is he advocating the use of lawless action? No. But if he was, it would still be protected unless it was likely to incite or produce such action.

So the theory fails on all grounds, and negated by a well-known and easily applied principle that anyone can apply. That’s why the denial of basic free speech rights is the central motive of those who claim he’s guilty of inciting insurrection.

Here are the two elements of the Brandenburg Test:

The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.

The attempt to prevent certification of the election is lawless action. In the January 6th speech he said:

You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen.

At that point what could they have done in a peaceful manner to prevent Biden from becoming President?

How were these "patriots", these "warriors" to respond to this:

This is not just a matter of domestic politics — this is a matter of national security.

By walking down Pennsylvania Avenue?

And which illegal activity did he advocate?

Once again:

The attempt to prevent certification of the election is lawless action. — Fooloso4

How does one fight like hell by peacefully walking down Pennsylvania Avenue? Trump may be stupid but he is shrewd enough to not spell it out any further.

That’s just not true. What he advocated was to march to the capital and cheer on the senators and congressmen.

If that's what he meant, then maybe he should have said, "We need to cheer like hell."

That’s just not true. — NOS4A2

What is just not true? All the quotes are from the speech. He said:

You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen.

He said:

This is not just a matter of domestic politics — this is a matter of national security.

He called them "patriots", these "warriors".

He said at the end of the speech:

So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

It’s not true that he advocated any crime, whether they are the ones you mentioned or insurrection. It’s why you won’t quote any advocacy of any crime, because you can’t.

For the third time:

The attempt to prevent certification of the election is lawless action. — Fooloso4

That is what he sent them there to do.

When he said:

And we can't let that happen.

that is a call for action to prevent it from happening. Walking down the street and cheering on the senators and congressmen does not prevent certification.

For the last time, he never advocated anything of the sort. It’s why you won’t quote him advocating anything. What you can quote him advocating is people march to the capital building and cheer on the congressmen.

he never advocated anything of the sort. — NOS4A2

What did he mean when he said "we can't let that happen"?

Only Trump supporters pretend to not understand inferences. But they're good doggies all the same when the tail wags.

We can’t certify a fraudulent election. Do you think this is the advocacy of a crime?

We can’t certify a fraudulent election. Do you think this is the advocacy of a crime? — NOS4A2

He wasn’t asking his supporters to prevent some hypothetical fraudulent election. He was asking them to prevent the actual election, which wasn’t fraudulent. You don’t get to get away with a crime by falsely claiming that what you’re doing isn’t a crime.

He wasn’t asking his supporters to prevent some hypothetical fraudulent election. He was asking them to prevent the actual election, which wasn’t fraudulent. You don’t get to get away with a crime by falsely claiming that want you want to do isn’t a crime.

It’s clear from his speech what he was advocating his supporters to do and what the actions of Congress he wanted them to cheer on. It’s all in there.

We can’t certify a fraudulent election. — NOS4A2

The standard fallback position. There is no evidence of a fraudulent election. Trump's own people told him that.

His legal attempts to overturn the election all failed. As did his previous illegal attempts.

Are you now admitting that when he said "we cannot let that happen" he was in fact advocating that they do something to prevent certification?

But that’s what he said in the preceding sentences to the one you quoted.

And yes, he wanted Congress to makes a stink about certification just as the Democrats in Congress did to the certification of Trump in 2016.

We can’t certify a fraudulent election. Do you think this is the advocacy of a crime? — NOS4A2

The election wasn't fraudulent. Trump was told this by White House Counsel, DOJ Leadership, and had received the findings of 2 independent research agencies that confirmed there was no widespread fraud - findings Trump never shared. You must truly have a low opinion of Trump's intelligence if you think he actually believed the election was stolen despite all the information he was given. At best, he was guilty of willful ignorance.

he wanted Congress to makes a stink about certification just as the Democrats in Congress did to the certification of Trump in 2016 — NOS4A2

That's silly. He wanted much more than this: he wanted Pence to block the certification.

Why should I care who told him what? You tell me I’m wrong all the time, and I still don’t believe what you think I ought to.

Why should I care who told him what? — NOS4A2

Because your position implies Trump was willfully ignorant. That's relevant to the crimes he's charged with and to his ability to serve as President.

Because your position implies Trump was willfully ignorant. That's relevant to the crimes he's charged with and to his ability to serve as President.

Refusing to believe something isn’t a principle of any crime I’ve ever heard of.

But that’s what he said in the preceding sentences to the one you quoted. — NOS4A2

He lied to them and you and the rest of the Trumpsters believed it. But he knew he had lost the election.

And yes, he wanted Congress to makes a stink about certification ... — NOS4A2

But he did not simply want Congress to a make a stink. He wanted his patriotic warriors to prevent certification of the results of a legitimate election. Even if he is unable to believe the results the attempt to prevent certification after all legal options have failed is a crime.