Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The immigration crisis is worsening

New York City is now in a state of emergency as just .007% of the total number of immigrants that flooded into the US across the porous southern border so far this year have now relocated to that city. When will American politicians move to put an end to the crisis?

NYC Mayor Declares State of Emergency over Influx of Illegal Immigrants | National Review
NEWS
NYC Mayor Declares State of Emergency over Influx of Illegal Immigrants

New York Mayor Eric Adams speaks during a news conference at City Hall in New York City, January 24, 2022. (Brendan McDermid/Reuters)
By BRITTANY BERNSTEIN


October 7, 2022 12:14 PM
Listen to article
New York City mayor Eric Adams declared a state of emergency on Friday in response to an influx of migrants arriving in the city.
Adams said at least 17,000 asylum seekers have arrived in the city by bus from other parts of the country since April.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott began busing migrants from the Lone Star State to New York City and Washington, D.C., in the spring.
Abbott previously said he decided to send busloads of migrants to Washington, D.C., and New York City “because of President Biden’s continued refusal to acknowledge the crisis caused by his open border policies,” saying that “the State of Texas has had to take unprecedented action to keep our communities safe.”
“In addition to Washington, D.C., New York City is the ideal destination for these migrants, who can receive the abundance of city services and housing that Mayor Eric Adams has boasted about within the sanctuary city,” he said when the first bus arrived in New York.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
missyann · 56-60
If Democrat demand that US let illegal citizens enter then why aren't they at the border with buses bringing them to liberal run states so that they have food, shelter, free healthcare and jobs? Since none of them are dangerous, unlock your gated communities and let them live in your homes.. Why expect southern states continue to accept and take care of them ?
Democrats are hypocrites
Ynotisay · M
@missyann And what if I told you, and could PROVE with data, that apprehensions are up under Biden? This year has the most apprehensions at the southern border ever. It beat last years record. Also under Biden. Would that change you mind or have you decided that just because you think something it automatically becomes true?
Aren't you happy that poor people, including impoverished children, escaping violence via very dangerous migrations from their country, are being arrested? That MUST fill your heart with joy. You should be all in with Biden. Trump failed in what you want.
missyann · 56-60
@Ynotisay I'm the 1st to admit that the majority of immigrants flooding our border do want a better life. It are those who are using them as a front to bring crime in that myself and a lot of americans base their opinions of immigrants on. If our government refuses to make sure that not 1 more criminal crosses into this country then it is my opinion that our border needs to be completely 100℅ closed. Democrats need to take them to liberal run cities and states since they are the ones demanding that illegals be allowed in. Especially the politicians in washington, NY and Chicago. Bring them into their neighborhoods. I have no problem with immigrants requesting and filing for citizenship as long as it is done 100℅ according to laws of our country.
Unfortunately one bad apple DOES spoil it for the good ones
Ynotisay · M
@missyann Why didn't you acknowledge that apprehensions are way up? What you said is "If Democrats demand that US let illegal citizens enter.." Do you know what that is? That's bullshit fed to white people you so you can have enemies to blame. And "liberal" cities? Uh...what? It's clear that you and aren't livin' in the same world. And sorry but I have not patience for that world. Makes my life worse. Have a good one.
marke · 70-79, M
@Ynotisay So what if apprehensions are way up as long as democrats continue to refuse to enforce immigration laws?
Ynotisay · M
@marke I asked you politely once. Don't write me again. Thanks.
marke · 70-79, M
@Ynotisay Please accept my apologies in advance if I forget who you are and accidentally respond to you again.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@marke
So what if apprehensions are way up as long as democrats continue to refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Which immigration laws are not being enforced?
missyann · 56-60
@Ynotisay Me o? If yes I m sorry I didn't see your request
Graylight · 51-55, F
@missyann I literally just drove by Juarez. Know what I saw? A town just like any other. No running families, no ms-13, no wars, no drugs. It’s always those who know so little who scream so loud.
marke · 70-79, M
@Graylight

Do you agree with democrats who claim there is no massive influx of undocumented immigrants crisis?
Graylight · 51-55, F
@marke
The number of migrant encounters at the Texas-Mexico border has climbed from 109,456 in March 2021, the month the mission began, to 116,976 in August.
Texas Tribune

Massive influx.

Here’s what I do know: Show me a bunch of people sitting around and arguing their opinions about facts and I’ll show you the waste of perfectly good communication skills.
marke · 70-79, M
@Diotrephes
Which immigration laws are not being enforced?

You are right. Immigration laws have become so butchered by amendment, court order, and political edicts that they can be interpreted any way anyone wants to anymore. So are republicans right to want to slow or stop the flood of immigrants or are democrats right to encourage the flow to continue? Is it not a problem for cities in the US, both large and small, to be forced to find accommodation for these swarms of homeless and jobless people into their already cash-strapped communities?
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@marke
You are right. Immigration laws have become so butchered by amendment, court order, and political edicts that they can be interpreted any way anyone wants to anymore. So are republicans right to want to slow or stop the flood of immigrants or are democrats right to encourage the flow to continue? Is it not a problem for cities in the US, both large and small, to be forced to find accommodation for these swarms of homeless and jobless people into their already cash-strapped communities?
Immigration and in-country migration has always been a problem for 400 years. No one has fixed it and now that there are countless treaties in the mix, no one will be able to fix it.

The current situation is a 12D chess game with various factions having their own agendas. The problem is very complex and each course of action has a lot of negative consequences. The large invasions are funded by a specific cabal and the national spy agencies know who the specific people are behind it but they refuse to take action against them. So, in the meantime worry about something else because this issue will not be fixed.
marke · 70-79, M
@Diotrephes
Immigration and in-country migration has always been a problem for 400 years. No one has fixed it and now that there are countless treaties in the mix, no one will be able to fix it.

I first noticed the democrat support for illegal immigration in 1996 when Sanchez stole the election from Dornan with the help of illegals voting. The illegal vote count in 2020 was in the thousands, enough alone to steal the election. Democrats know the majority of Americans do not want their country impoverished by trying to house and feed the whole world but they started supporting massive illegal immigration for political reasons and now they can hardly stop it for any reason whatsoever.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@marke Yes, history did not start before 1996. Keen eye.
marke · 70-79, M
@Graylight
Yes, history did not start before 1996. Keen eye.

I was not alive when democrat voter fraud began in the US. Here is some history:


https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/1856-vigilantes-changed-corrupt-political-system-5663654.php

1856 vigilantes changed corrupt political system

Gary Kamiya
Aug. 1, 2014
3
1of3
This is a photo of "Fort Gunnybags," headquarters of the San Francisco Vigilance Committee of 1856. It was on Sacramento street between Davis and Front streets. It is one of many historic photos on exhibit at 1 Sacramento street.

The vigilantes who seized control of San Francisco in 1856 had more on their minds than exacting street justice - they wanted to change the city's entire corrupt political system. They were revolutionaries.
The Second Committee of Vigilance was formed in response to the fatal attack on a popular reforming newspaper editor - its first action was to hang the killer and his unfortunate cellmate. But the real target of the movement, which was largely made up of merchants, skilled workers and clerks, was a Tammany Hall-style political machine run by a Democratic operative named David Broderick.

Broderick handed out jobs to his cronies and used hired toughs to ensure that votes went his way. A few weeks after the hangings, the vigilante committee found its smoking gun: a false-bottom ballot box in the house of a Democratic activist.

For 19th century Americans, proud of their new democracy, elections were sacred, and violation of the ballot box was "a crime of the darkest dye," as the Alta California newspaper put it. The box that the vigilantes seized had a secret compartment to hold extra ballots, which could be released into the main compartment by moving a hidden panel.
At least 10,000 people turned out at a mass meeting to listen to speeches and view the "amazing false-bottomed ballot box."
The sacrilegious object, permanently displayed in the Committee of Vigilance's headquarters, a sandbagged building on Sacramento Street known as Fort Gunnybags, became the movement's icon.
Membership in the group swelled to as many as 8,000 men, the largest vigilante movement in U.S. history.

Swift justice
Vigilante justice, unhampered by legalisms like warrants or jury trials, was swift and implacable. As Broderick's detested political operatives walked down the street, they suddenly found themselves surrounded by armed vigilantes, given summary trials for political fraud and ballot-box stuffing, convicted and hustled onto ships in the harbor. Then they were deported.
Twenty-five or so of Broderick's cronies received this treatment, with Panama and Hawaii being popular destinations. According to historian Hubert Bancroft, the vigilantes also persuaded about 800 of the "worst characters" to leave the city, a crew composed of "thieves, murderers, corrupters of public morals, gamblers, prize-fighters,
A strange-bedfellows alliance of ballot-box stuffers, loafers and vagabonds." Broderick's heavily Irish, working-class supporters joined the "Chivs," Southern pro-slavery Democrats, in opposing the vigilantes. Swayed by David Terry, a ferocious, bowie-knife-wielding Chiv and state Supreme Court justice, Gov. Neely Johnson declared that San Francisco was in a "state of insurrection" and called upon all citizens to enlist in the militia to crush it.
The San Francisco branch of the state militia was commanded by a banker named William Tecumseh Sherman. He would go on to make something of a name for himself in the Civil War, but San Francisco's vigilantes proved too much for him.
Johnson planned to raise a large force and equip it with 4,000 muskets that would be provided by the military base at Benicia. Sherman located a hilltop on which he could place artillery that would destroy Fort Gunnybags.
If Johnson's plans had come to fruition, the U.S. military could have opened fire on the rebellious city of San Francisco. Sherman, however, was torn: He was sworn to uphold the law, but his fellow merchants were all vigilantes, and opposing the movement would doom his bank.

Scared of S.F.
When only a few hundred ragtag San Franciscans answered Johnson's call, Sherman resigned. He was later to utter one of the most deathless quotes in the city's history: "I can handle a hundred thousand men in battle and take the City of the Sun (Atlanta), but am afraid to manage a lot in the swamp of San Francisco."

One last bizarre twist remained in the saga. When vigilantes tried to arrest Terry, who had fomented a plan to ship arms to antivigilantes, he stabbed one of them with his bowie knife. When the vigilantes arrested Terry, they found themselves in a quandary: A state Supreme Court justice was such a big fish they didn't know what to do with him.
Fortunately, the stabbed vigilante lived, and the unrepentant Terry, who raged that he was being punished for merely sticking a knife into a "damn little Yankee well-borer," was surreptitiously released one night at 2 a.m. Fearing for his life, he took refuge on a Navy ship, the John Adams, that was anchored ominously off the Sacramento Street pier, its guns trained on Fort Gunnybags.

Farewell parade
It never had to fire a shot. On Aug. 18, 1856, the Second Committee of Vigilance voluntarily disbanded, 99 days after a fire station bell had first tolled to summon citizens to action.
As bands played, more than 6,000 armed men paraded through the flag-decked streets - a larger force, veterans remarked, than that commanded by Gen. Winfield Scott when the U.S. Army captured Mexico City in 1847. In the middle of the parade, vigilantes pulled a float carrying a large painted canvas replica of Fort Gunnybags, complete with five cannons.

The deterrent effect of the 1856 committee's actions on crime only lasted for a month or two. In October, the Alta California wrote that "crime, vice, dissipation still rear their hydra-heads in our midst. ... Offenders against law and the public weal are scarcely less numerous or successful than of old."

Lasting change
But the committee's most lasting achievement was set in motion just before it disbanded. On Aug. 11, a mass gathering listened to orators denounce the existing political parties - Democrats, Republicans, Whigs and Know-Nothings - and demand a new party. The antiparty, populist, reform-minded People's Party that formed in response swept into power in elections that fall.

Major political and fiscal reforms, including slashing bloated municipal expenditures, lowering taxes and putting the city on a pay-as-you-go basis, were implemented. The People's Party, born of the most extraordinary upheaval in the city's political history, held office for 10 years.
llloydfred · 56-60, M
@missyann Votes