Biden border surge could be 1.4++million illegal crossings/year

[detbuch]

https://www.gopusa.com/?p=107674?omhide=true

Some passages:

. . . Three-quarters [thousands]of these unaccompanied minors are young men ages 15 to 17 . . .

. . . A few weeks after surrendering to border officials, they’ll board buses to Los Angeles, Houston or New York City [and other places]. . .

. . . The law requires them to go to school. But they’ve endured trauma on their trek and missed months or years of schooling. Few speak English, and many don’t know Spanish, only Mayan . . .

. . . Their education will cost thousands of dollars a year more than for the average student because they’ll need linguistic experts, tutors, psychological counseling, vaccinations and other support . . .

. . . only 66% of students without English skills ever graduate. . .

. . . In 2014, New York City schools rolled out the red carpet for 1,662 migrants from Central America, committing a whopping $50 million for special programs. .

. . . President Joe Biden seems oblivious. Last week, he announced a program to enable Central American children to apply for admission to the United States from their home country . . .

. . . The Democratic Party pays lip service to reducing economic inequality. But their open border policy is doing the opposite — fostering a permanent underclass working for low wages . . .

. . . Teens who fail to get a diploma are almost doomed to poverty. Nearly half the Central American adult migrants in the U.S. don’t have a high school diploma. Their education levels are lower than other immigrants or the U.S.-born population. And no surprise, they are also poorer . . .

. . . In the Chicago suburbs, these young teens labor nights in meatpacking plants and auto parts plants, come home at 6 a.m. when their shift ends, and then go to school two hours later on almost no sleep, according to a ProPublica expose. No wonder they fall asleep in class and age out of high school before getting a diploma. The #^&#^&#^&#^&ensian era of child labor is being resurrected in our country today, thanks to open borders . . .

[Slipknot]

Move some of them into Nancy Pelosi's home, she has room, plenty of room.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Move some of them into Nancy Pelosi's home, she has room, plenty of room.

Soon they will be antifa and trained marxists. Millions and millions of them. Then... they all move to Warwick.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Soon they will be antifa and trained marxists. Millions and millions of them. Then... they all move to Warwick.

Violent far left Antifa members were recently filmed at a gathering during which a Hispanic female member of the group scolded a white male member of the group for the pigmentation of his skin.

“You’re still white,” she yelled at the man. “You’re still responsible. This is your fault. You’re inherently racist. It’s in your blood. It’s in your DNA.”


Remember, these are the people who are supposedly fighting racism in America.

The exchange took place after the woman berated the man for what she called “white performativeness,” which apparently means showing up to an Antifa rally as a white person and not punching “Nazis.”


“I’m seriously telling you to do the work,” she said. “Punch a Nazi. Stop being performative.”

The man embarrassingly groveled for acceptance among the Hispanic Antifa tribe as he tried to explain that he had put a good deal of time and effort into fighting “Nazis.”


“I’ve been f****** fighting for like three months,” he said. I’ve put myself at risk for us all the time! Somebody threw a f****** megaphone at my head!”

It wasn’t enough. No amount of megaphones to the head could overcome that poor man’s cardinal sin – being born with the immutable characteristic of whiteness.

WATCH: (Warning: Explicit Language) https://www.facebook.com/MilneNews/v...5124663229656/

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Soon they will be antifa and trained marxists. Millions and millions of them. Then... they all move to Warwick.

don't forget MS-13 or the Cartel

[Pete F.]

Zero of the top 50 most densely-populated cities in the world are in the United States. If there's one thing we've got plenty of, it's room.

Unless you fall for the losers big lie, one of many, who routinely demonized undocumented immigrants, calling them drug dealers, criminals, and rapists.

More people will die from the stupid kids packing south Florida for Spring Break bringing the latest variant of Covid home and senseless gun crimes like Atlanta and Boulder this week than from illegal immigrants.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Zero of the top 50 most densely-populated cities in the world are in the United States. If there's one thing we've got plenty of, it's room.

Is that one of the markers for when to stop illegal, disorderly, mass immigration? Having a city in the top 50 most populated? Or having enough room--until you get one of those cities? Is there not enough room in central America? Haven't heard not having enough room was one of the reasons they come here.

Maybe we should stop turning big land areas into national parks, just in case we run out of room to accommodate all the poor people of the world. Maybe we should outlaw abortion because we have enough room for the millions of aborted humans before they could migrate out of the womb.

Unless you fall for the losers big lie, one of many, who routinely demonized undocumented immigrants, calling them drug dealers, criminals, and rapists.

Is calling people "losers" nicer than calling them criminals? Aren't criminals and rapists and drug dealers losers of sorts?

And your MO is the big lie. You constantly repeat big lies. Such as the "losers" you claim have called all "undocumented" (illegal) immigrants criminals, rapists, and drug dealers.

More people will die from the stupid kids packing south Florida for Spring Break bringing the latest variant of Covid home and senseless gun crimes like Atlanta and Boulder this week than from illegal immigrants.

The number of people who will die from those things is unknown and questionable. And it is unknown how many will die from "senseless" open borders and policies that welcome and make coming here easier and easier. especially when we are under various societal threatening identity crises, unemployment, increasing poverty, the transformation of our constitutional republic into a centralized welfare state . . .More people generally equates to more of most things, including death.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The number of people who will die from those things is unknown and questionable. And it is unknown how many will die from "senseless" open borders and policies that welcome and make coming here easier and easier. especially when we are under various societal threatening identity crises, unemployment, increasing poverty, the transformation of our constitutional republic into a centralized welfare state . . .More people generally equates to more of most things, including death.

That’s unknown and questionable but be very afraid and vote for those who claim they will save you, like the loser
Luckily most Americans didn’t fall for his big lies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That’s unknown and questionable but be very afraid and vote for those who claim they will save you,

Most politicians claim that. Especially leftist ones. That's the reason lefties exist. To save the people because they claim that people can't save themselves.

like the loser
Luckily most Americans didn’t fall for his big lies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently they did fall for his big lies and they voted in "the borders are closed" big liar Biden.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Apparently they did fall for his big lies and they voted in big liar Biden.

Donald Trump was a tool in a long-running Russian campaign to weaken the United States. That’s been documented in Republican-led investigative reports, and now it has been updated with new evidence, thanks to the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment of the 2020 election. The report, drafted by the CIA, the FBI, and several other agencies, was released in unclassified form on Tuesday, but it was presented in classified form on Jan. 7. In other words, it was compiled, written, and edited during Trump’s administration. It destroys his lies about the election, and it exposes him as a Russian asset.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Donald Trump was a tool in a long-running Russian campaign to weaken the United States. That’s been documented in Republican-led investigative reports, and now it has been updated with new evidence, thanks to the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment of the 2020 election. The report, drafted by the CIA, the FBI, and several other agencies, was released in unclassified form on Tuesday, but it was presented in classified form on Jan. 7. In other words, it was compiled, written, and edited during Trump’s administration. It destroys his lies about the election, and it exposes him as a Russian asset.

Here you go again. Since you can't start threads, you hi-jack an existing one. This thread is not about that. There are several old ones you could resurrect by infusing this crap into one.

As for this thread, you have said nothing pertaining to it that is significant or helpful. Just more of your biased junk.

[Pete F.]

The GOP is fear mongering over Muslims, immigrants, and cancel culture because they literally have nothing else to offer anymore.

[Pete F.]

There’s no migrant ‘surge’ at the U.S. southern border. Here’s the data.
Evidence reveals the usual seasonal bump — plus some of the people who waited during the pandemic
Image without a caption
Migrants in custody at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection processing area under the Anzalduas International Bridge on Friday in Mission, Tex. (Julio Cortez/AP)
By Tom K. Wong, Gabriel De Roche and Jesus Rojas Venzor
March 23, 2021 at 7:00 a.m. EDT

We looked at data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to see whether there’s a “crisis” — or even a “surge,” as many news outlets have characterized it. We analyzed monthly CBP data from 2012 to now and found no crisis or surge that can be attributed to Biden administration policies. Rather, the current increase in apprehensions fits a predictable pattern of seasonal changes in undocumented immigration combined with a backlog of demand because of 2020’s coronavirus border closure.

It’s not a surge. It’s the usual seasonal increase.
The CBP reports monthly data on how many migrants its agents apprehend at the southern border, including unaccompanied minors. The figure below shows the most recent data the CBP has made publicly available.

As the blue line shows, the CBP has recorded a 28 percent increase in migrants apprehended from January to February 2021, from 78,442 to 100,441. News outlets, pundits and politicians have been calling this a “surge” and a “crisis.”

But as you can see, the CBP’s numbers reveal that undocumented immigration is seasonal, shifting upward this time of year. During fiscal year 2019, under the Trump administration, total apprehensions increased 31 percent during the same period, a bigger jump than we’re seeing now. We’re comparing fiscal year 2021 to 2019 because the pandemic changed the pattern in 2020. In 2018, the increase is about 25 percent from February to March — somewhat smaller but still pronounced.

But was 2019 an aberration? In the figure below, we combine data from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2020 to show the cumulative total number of apprehensions for each month over these eight years. As you can see, migrants start coming when winter ends and the weather gets a bit warmer. We see a regular increase not just from January to February, but from February to March, March to April, and April to May — and then a sharp drop-off, as migrants stop coming in the hotter summer months when the desert is deadly. That means we should expect decreases from May to June and June to July.

Data: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Figure: U.S. Immigration Policy Center (USIPC) at UC San Diego
What we’re seeing, in other words, isn’t a surge or crisis, but a predictable seasonal shift. When the numbers drop again in June and July, policymakers may be tempted to claim that their deterrence policies succeeded. But that will just be the usual seasonal drop.

So why are we seeing more migrants so far in 2021?
The CBP has indeed reported apprehending more migrants in February 2021 than in the same month in previous years. But that too doesn’t mean it’s a surge or a crisis. In the first figure, above, the blue trend line for fiscal year 2021 is above the orange trend line for fiscal year 2019. But 2020 was the pandemic, when movement dropped dramatically. Countries around the world closed their borders. Here in the United States, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a provision from the 1944 Public Health Act, to summarily expel migrants attempting to enter the United States without proper documentation.

In other words, in fiscal year 2021, it appears that migrants are continuing to enter the United States in the same numbers as in fiscal year 2019 — plus the pent-up demand from people who would have come in fiscal year 2020, but for the pandemic. That’s visible in the first figure, earlier, in which the blue trend line for the five months of data available for fiscal year 2021 (October, November, December, January and February) neatly reflects the trend line for fiscal year 2019 — plus the difference between fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2019.

This suggests that Title 42 expulsions delayed prospective migrants rather than deterred them — and they’re arriving now.

That would be consistent with nearly three decades of research in political science. Much of this research has been done since President Bill Clinton’s administration ran Operation Gatekeeper, which tried to keep out migrants by increasing funding and staff for border enforcement. Scholars consistently find that border security policies do not necessarily deter migration; rather, they delay migrants’ decisions to travel, and change the routes they take.

Reassessing our understanding of undocumented immigration
So have Biden administration policies caused a crisis at the southern border? Evidence suggests not. The Trump administration oversaw a record in apprehensions in fiscal year 2019, before the pandemic shut the border. This year looks like the usual seasonal increase plus migrants who would have come last year, but could not.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Reassessing our understanding of undocumented immigration
So have Biden administration policies caused a crisis at the southern border? Evidence suggests not. The Trump administration oversaw a record in apprehensions in fiscal year 2019, before the pandemic shut the border. This year looks like the usual seasonal increase plus migrants who would have come last year, but could not.

That was funny. The pandemic shut the border. The pandemic must be over.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The GOP is fear mongering over Muslims, immigrants, and cancel culture because they literally have nothing else to offer anymore.

Obviously, we have no Muslim problem. All is going well there. Zip the lips re that.

No immigration problem. It's all good. Or will be when every shred and crumb of Trump and GOP policy is wiped out. That's what Uncle Joe is doing. Folks misconstrue his creating new policies as a reaction to some phantom crisis. Nope. He's just making what was already great before Trump even better.

And cancel culture is great stuff. It's New Wave cleansing of bad people who thought they had some fictitious right to opinions and actions that run counter to the will of the good folk of this country.

Things are getting straightened out fast under the Harris/Biden administration. They've got total control of Congress and the Presidency. They will give us an American Renaissance. The Constitution will be cleansed of those silly glitches that constrained their power. The Federal Government will now be free to, how did you put it, to "offer us" stuff--that we can't refuse.

We don't need that nasty fear mongering by the GOP. We only have to be afraid of white supremacists and white males.

[Pete F.]

You're all set with the future conservatives

Dinesh D'Souza? Allen West? Ted Nugent? Steve Crowder? Curt Schilling?

Biggest bunch of victims since the Confederacy

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You're all set with the future conservatives

Dinesh D'Souza? Allen West? Ted Nugent? Steve Crowder? Curt Schilling?

Biggest bunch of victims since the Confederacy

As far as the subject of this thread goes, I would trust their opinions over any Democrat. But I understand why you must take every opportunity to make fake smears. I don't expect integrity from someone who must resort to lying and slander in order to destroy what he fears.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As far as the subject of this thread goes, I would trust their opinions over any Democrat. But I understand why you must take every opportunity to make fake smears. I don't expect integrity from someone who must resort to lying and slander in order to destroy what he fears.

Calling the person who came in second in an election a loser is not lying or slander.

In this country elections have winners and losers.

55% of Americans now think the country is on the right track

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Calling the person who came in second in an election a loser is not lying or slander.

In this country elections have winners and losers.

55% of Americans now think the country is on the right track

There is an important connotative difference between THE loser (in a specific competion) and A loser (in general).

Is "Biggest bunch of victims since the Confederacy" some sort of objective unbiased, and truthful characterization?


So, if you subscribe to the infallibility of the majority of Americans, you must have thought that the country was on the right track when the American people elected Trump.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is an important connotative difference between THE loser (in a specific competion) and A loser (in general).

Is "Biggest bunch of victims since the Confederacy" some sort of objective unbiased, and truthful characterization?


So, if you subscribe to the infallibility of the majority of Americans, you must have thought that the country was on the right track when the American people elected Trump.

Perhaps you forgot, but that loser didn’t get a majority then either, 2.8 million more Americans voted for his opponent
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps you forgot, but that loser didn’t get a majority then either, 2.8 million more Americans voted for his opponent
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're absolutely right. I did forget that. Thank you for reminding me.

I'm still under the influence of the fact that we are a republic, not a democracy. For very good reason. Democracies are prone to the tyranny of the majority, and the injustice of the errors that are common to mob rule. Majority opinion is the ultimate suppression of individual perception and expression. Of individual freedom.

Which is the point that I was trying to make. Majority opinion is merely a simplistic method of selection. It is not some infallible method of arriving at some philosophical, religious, scientific, or even political truth. Because a majority believes something does not make it right. It takes a lot more wisdom, intellect, intelligence, and investigative rigor in order to arrive at truth and justice than is usual in most majorities. It has happened throughout history many times that one person was right and the crowd was wrong.

Your notion of a majority claiming we are "on the right track" means nothing more than might makes right. That fits well with your Progressive, authoritarian, sometimes even Post Modern, views on what our government should be and do "for us."

[Pete F.]

Hamilton in Federalist #22:

"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.
This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security.
But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.
In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward.
If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.
And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hamilton in Federalist #22:

"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.
This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security.
But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.
In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward.
If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.
And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the majority is given the power to determine what is right or good, then the majority will always be right and good.

The majority, under the power given to it was right to say Socrates or Galileo were wrong. In hindsight, we would say those majorities were wrong.

Expediency in government necessitates some constant instrumental process to arrive at conclusions and decisions. In democratically structured societies, majority vote is the most expedient process for making decisions. That doesn't mean the decisions are "right." It simply means that the majority has been given the power to decide.

In tyrannical governments, the instrument is the tyrant and the process is the administration of his decisions.

In democratic systems, majorities must be persuaded. When, by argument or demagoguery, majorities are persuaded that they need some particular or other, whether they actually do or not, then the statesmen or demagogues will be proved "right" when the instrument of majority vote or opinion is expressed.

In red states, Republicans are "right." In blue states, Democrats are "right." Even though the parties have opposing views, majorities have proclaimed them both to be right or wrong.

Majorities have proclaimed slavery to be right. Majorities have said it is wrong. Etc., etc., etc. . . .

Hamilton was writing about expediency in government, not about right or wrong.

The Founders did not want a tyrannical system. Nor did they want a system in which majorities created a form of tyranny by imposing the will of the majority over every aspect of the individual rights of all the citizens. That's why they created a Constitution that severely limited the central government. Even Hamilton, the most hungry for central government power, believed in unalienable individual rights which the government could not abridge.

Those Founders would not approve of what current majorities have been persuaded to believe in or vote for. But they would have bowed to the presumed rightness of majority rule and the erroneous decisions arrived at by those majorities.

Or else they would have called for a new revolution.

[Pete F.]

"As the Founders intended" is the laziest of lazy arguments. Which founders? The signers of the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, or Constitution? Because that's a lotta folks who never agreed on much. How about every Congress that's amended the Constitution? All founders
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"As the Founders intended" is the laziest of lazy arguments. Which founders? The signers of the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, or Constitution? Because that's a lotta folks who never agreed on much. How about every Congress that's amended the Constitution? All founders
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The quote you started this post with is not any quote of mine in this thread. I am not a subscriber to original intent. In the past, on this forum, I have argued against depending on original intent as the means to interpret the Constitution. In my opinion, judicial review, judicial "interpretation," or even academic and popular interpretation should strictly be based on the original text, with some occasional clarifying supportive nods to intent, but not relying solely on the conflicting opinions of intent to support an interpretation of the Constitution.

What we have been steered into discussing here, which deflects from the subject of this thread, is the empirical "rightness" or "wrongness" of majority opinion and majority power. I claim that we give, in our democratic process, the majority the right to decide. But that is strictly an instrumental process which expedites the function of government. It is not some guarantee that majority opinion is "right" in any way other than through the wielding of power through superior numbers.

The notion that a majority believes we are "on the right track" is nothing more than an instance of might makes right.

How that might is accrued depends on the ability of power seekers to influence the majority. When there is a contest between those who hold the political power we have by majority given them, the message of the power mongers can be, and usually is, full of deceptions, exaggerations, misdirection, bribes through promises of all sorts of largesse given or transferred to the voters, and outright lies. When majority opinion relies on political rhetoric and promises, it has no claim to some noble ideological or justicial rightness, just the raw power of numbers.

As for your question of "which founders"--the majority.

[Pete F.]

The original Constitution didn't even have the Bill of Rights, so you've gotta add on those authors and that Congress as well

BTW, if you think there's a lotta overlap between the signers of the first 3 founding documents, there's a total of 2 people who signed all 3
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The original Constitution didn't even have the Bill of Rights, so you've gotta add on those authors and that Congress as well

BTW, if you think there's a lotta overlap between the signers of the first 3 founding documents, there's a total of 2 people who signed all 3
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this another rabbit hole to escape from the subject of this thread? We could keep morphing from one subject to another and never have to start another thread. I guess that would be to your advantage. Do you want to discuss the Mayflower Compact, or the Northwest Ordinance, or the Missouri Compromises. Maybe the various state constitutions. Perhaps the libraries and letters of Washington and Madison and Jefferson and Hamilton. The Gettysburg Address is a really good one. We could go through the Federalist Papers one by one. The Anti-Federalist Papers would be really good to talk about and very pertinent in regards to how the Constitution has been Progressively "interpreted" in ways that turn it upside down and converted it into a document of nearly unlimited federal power instead of limiting that power.

Yeah, Madison did not originally want a bill of rights. The way the Constitution was written, a bill of rights was not necessary. The Constitution once, as written, reserved for the people that vast residuum of rights that remain beyond the few, limited, rights specified for the federal government. The individual rights specified in the Bill of Rights were already understood to be incorporated within that vast residuum embedded in the Constitutional structure, and the enumerating of a few specific rights of the people, Madison feared, would give the government a plausible pretext to claim that it was only those specified rights given in the Bill of rights which could be claimed by the people, and all else would remain within government power to manipulate as it wished.

But Progressive Courts have basically "interpreted" that quietly understood residuum of rights not listed in the BOR out of existence by giving the federal government nearly unlimited power through, in effect, rewriting various clauses such as the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Welfare Clause, and others in a way that vanquishes much of the limitations by which the Constitution once constrained government. So now, generations later, the people are under the impression the Constitution guaranties us only those rights listed in the BOR.

So Madison's fear has come to fruition. And even those few rights in the BOR have been whittled down in scope, some to near non-existence. And the first two are now on shaky ground.

[detbuch]

Texas GOP Congressman Ronny Jackson said Saturday that the federal government's top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, should be down at the U.S. southern border instead of guilting Americans into wearing "two masks."

Jackson, who was the chief medical adviser to the White House during former President Donald Trump's administration, accused Democrats of having used the COVID-19 pandemic as a political "tool" since the virus outbreak last year.

The Texas Republican told Fox News Saturday that Fauci and other Biden administration officials aren't dealing with the health crisis at the border, which he said is worsening due to overcrowding at migrant detention facilities. He and Fox News host Pete Hegseth agreed that photographs at the border show "super spreaders" are trying to gain entry to America.

"Well, the Dems have used COVID as a tool for the last two years to get whatever they need, and they're using it now to make an excuse why reporters and people can't go in there and see what's going on," Jackson told Fox News. "I'd like to know, where is President Biden's concern about our health down there?"

"Where is Fauci?" Jackson continued. "Fauci should be down there at the border looking at this, instead, he's running around talking about how you have to wear two masks and all this other kind of stuff to keep us safe and if you don't you're responsible. Simultaneously, the border is just being stormed by these people, we know a large percentage of these people are COVID positive. "

Jackson joined numerous congressional Republicans who say the immigration crisis at the border may be worsening the coronavirus pandemic by allowing infected individuals into the country. Alabama GOP Congressman Mo Brooks said "illegal immigrants" are bringing COVID-19 into the country at an alarming rate during an interview last week.

During a U.S. Senate committee hearing about the health crisis at the border on March 18, Fauci said he was "not familiar" enough with the situation in Texas to fully answer Republicans' questions

During a separate appearance on Fox News Friday, Jackson claimed President Joe Biden may not be "fit for duty and in control" of his mental facilities. This accusation was often directed toward the 78-year-old Biden by his critics during the 2020 presidential campaign.

Fauci is the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a position he also occupied during Trump's administration. The former president frequently criticized Fauci for appearing to contradict his administration during the pandemic.

Jackson said the state of Texas, which lifted its state mask mandate earlier this month, will be reeling from the potentially infected migrants crossing the border.

"We've worked really hard, especially here in Texas, to turn things around with COVID so we can get our kids back to school and open up our small businesses and they are going to absolutely undo this with everything going on down there. This is a huge disaster from an economic standpoint and from a health standpoint and from a national security standpoint...for crying out loud, we know there's people on the terrorist watch list coming across the border."

[Pete F.]

Is Jackson sober these days?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Is Jackson sober these days?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you?