Indeed. I don’t know why all those people who live on Martha’s Vineyard would charter planes and then lure a bunch of people with the promise of work and homes to the island and then just kick them out. The way they acted was as if they weren’t even the ones who flew those people in! Oh. They didn’t? It was a stunt by some ass clowns who used human beings like toys, lying to them and leaving them scared in a place they knew no one and had no connections or support at all, on a literal island where the chances of them affording housing or finding the infrastructure to help them were nill?
Well… I guess the only people who should be glad they didn’t have to deal with the consequences are the people who masterminded and carried out the plot and didn’t go to prison and/or lose their jobs.
“You’re missing the point! Those people are rich with big homes and are insulated from immigration issues but keep pushing pro immigration politics- so it was a chance to see how THEY would feel and act if that was happening in their backyard!” Well bud…. Like… you do realize that the politicians and people who paid for the stunt aren’t exactly living in trailers right? You do realize that people in the “blue collar belt” often have 3,000-10,000 square ft homes and they too are not keen to have strangers living with them. So that’s a bit universal, fairly so, that most people aren’t ramping up to host migrant families they don’t know regardless of how much space or income they have.
But here’s the thing, it isn’t like Mexico or immigration were founded in 1996. There’s actually been a lot “south of the border” for a good… oh… several million odd billion of years? At least longer than the USA has been here. So yes, the people of Martha’s Vineyard or Idaho generally have less worry about people crossing the southern border directly into their yards, distance insulates a bit. Sort of like how Los Angeles is much better at dealing with earth quakes than hurricanes and Kansas is better prepared for Tornados than massive wildfires. Border states have border state issues. They’ve always had them as long as they’ve been border states. Federal law says people in wildfire zones can’t built their properties out of asbestos. Their hands are tied there- so they have to figure out another solution to their problems right? So if you can’t “lock the border down” with walls and land mines and turrets or whatever- leaders of those states need to come up with other ways
to deal. And those ways might just be ways to integrate as opposed to prohibit. But I mean- regardless of where one stands on immigration and border issues, it was a shitty stunt. It used human beings and caused harm to human beings. And to my earlier point about those politicians not living in trailers- who primarily lives in Martha’s Vineyard? Wealthy people. People who most “average” folks tend to be fine with, even happy with, bad things happening too because they have things financially better and tend to be out of touch. I’m not going to argue for those peoples humanity or quality of life even if they are still people. I’m going to say- is that the problem? Is that what so many average people in border states are mad about? They’re upset that migrants keep infiltrating their wealthiest neighbors? No. The fears and anger from most immigration reform proponents aren’t aimed at the fact that wealthy neighborhoods in border states are flooded with migrants.
The upset is because BLUE COLLAR type folks neighborhoods and livelihoods are perceived as in danger. So what does sending migrants to the homes of the wealthy elite have to do with that? Nothing. They did it BECAUSE most folks would forgive or even relish “sticking it to rich liberals.” Not even most poor liberals like rich liberals. Why do you think rich liberals are always patting themselves on the bad and growing themselves parties and awards? No one likes them- most don’t even like each other. Look at all the beef in Hollywood. But the people pulling that stunt knew that if they sent those migrants into working class neighborhoods in non border states that wouldn’t be so easily forgiven. But to “give the people making choices against restrictions a taste” that’s what you’d have to do.
But here’s the crazy thing- of the border states, you won’t find any border state where at least some people don’t want immigration reform or are simply racist- but which states are most conservative and vocal on the issue and which border states are most accepting..? And then… let’s look at if that correlates at all to general income or education at a state level… interesting…
So like… maybe these politicians need to spend more time improving their states..?
Not shocking that someone who’s job is to see to the well being of a state, in a state where things aren’t so great, would rather pull stunts and point the finger of blame hundreds or thousands of miles away than either do the work or fess up that they aren’t right for the job.
Let me ask you this- do you think this incumbent hard line governors and such in these states, do you think that of tomorrow we somehow stopped 100% of illegal cross border traffic- do you think that in their next term or so they’d transform the economic and other issues facing their states? The meth would vanish from the southwest, the yards would all be clean and jobs would abound at living wages? Water shortages would be a thing of the past? No. But… “those states were ruined by a century of illegal…” nah man. Nah. Indeed it would be optimistic to expect all the issues, even those that do relate to illegal cross border activity, to go away in 4 or 8 years, but… how long do you think that excuse flies? Most of Europe and swaths of Japan were leveled in WW2 and those places are some of the richest most developed places on earth now.
If you can bounce back from total war in a decade or two, you’re telling me that some folks hopping a fence are a bigger destructive force than the largest mechanized conflict in human history and 2 atomic bombs…? I’m not buying what you are selling. The overlap of people who will talk about playing the victim card or getting over things that happened generations ago and the number of people ready to pull that card out when and where they can is disappointingly huge. At some point,
You either accept reality or become delusional.
It’s fair to note that they weren’t “kicked off” the island. They were brought to the nearest location that could accommodate the people, comfortably, while getting them to the places they needed to be. Many of these people had to be in other parts of the country to get their papers sorted.
I've only read about 40% of guest's myriad of posts, but I think the main idea was missed: The residents of Martha's Vineyard were bragging about how they were a "sanctuary city," but only until it was time to actually give anybody sanctuary. Then they couldn't get rid of sanctuary-seekers fast enough.
It's a shame people were used as pawns, but it's interesting when people won't make good on any portion of their boasting and virtue signaling.
Martha’s Vineyard is not a sanctuary city, and they didn’t claim to be. They don’t have the infrastructure to be a sanctuary city.
They did, however, pass sanctuary laws—which are not the same as being a sanctuary city.
I know it seems like splitting hairs, but legal language is very specific and often confusing when put into a colloquial context.
The terminology is important.
1. Martha’s Vineyard is an island but it is not a single city or government, there are at least 6 small governments on the island and not all of them have or had “sanctuary” laws.
2. There isn’t actually a legal concept of a definition of “sanctuary city” or such. What that means is case by case. What is common, as with Martha’s Vineyard, is at least to either not report or detain undocumented persons who contact emergency services or use public and government avenues; or to ban or discourage the arrest and immigration reporting and processing of persons suspected to not be legal residents unless they have committed some type of other crime.
Now, this is where the inherent idiocy of the thing enters, regardless of one’s feelings on immigration. In most of the United States it is unlawful to be unhomed, or the generally fragile conditions and consequences of being homeless make a person in violation of law. Most jurisdictions have official or unofficial guidelines for police to essentially leave the homeless alone unless they are breaking a more serious law and causing danger or disturbance- which makes sense because if one is going to pay to house and cloth and feed someone in jail for being homeless, that same cost or less could have been spent and they wouldn’t be homeless no?
So then- the practice of “bussing” or “herding” the homeless has king been frowned on by most civilized folks- where one city or town etc. pushes their homeless to another location through harassment or coercion to push the problem on a neighbor. It’s just a shitty thing to do to the homeless but also to the neighbor. Selfish.
I could go on with examples but I’ll take faith the average person can understand the concept that just because a place has passed a humanitarian law doesn’t make it right or good to abuse that law- especially in such a nonsensical way.
Just because a city will not take action to deport non legal persons who have not committed other crimes doesn’t mean that they are welcoming such people. You or I might give money to any poor families we saw at the grocers unable to pay or help pay for school for a local kid as a humanitarian gesture, but does that mean that you want or welcome strangers filling buses with people to send to you because you’re on record as having a soft heart?
If some guy states away heard you always take kindness on XYZ people, and said: “well I’ll teach them a lesson!” And gathered up a bus of those people and sent them to your home so they could mock you when you didn’t help them due to the sudden overload of unplanned strangers that never likely would have come before you had they not acted maliciously- would you not think that person was a real shit bag? Who spends resources to make problems where problems already exist? That tells you a lot already about people. People who see bad situations and try to just live with, people who try to make them better, and people who just make more problems instead of living their lives or helping. To go out of your way to cause problems for not just the immigrants and not just the people of those towns, but for all the other people who then need to get involved in cleaning up a bigger mess you made. That’s a shitty person, or at least someone who needs help.
So there is no way to slice that pie or define things or play with words that doesn’t boil down to the only “good” there is petulance. The only thing to celebrate is a joy at harming others. And I use the term not as an insult but as a flat fact- it only appeals to a “poetic justice” if one is ignorant of fact. My own feelings on immigration asides, this was just a political stunt, there was no “awareness” or “lesson.” The people of Martha’s Vineyard were not revealed as hypocrites, the “sanctuary” laws of the land are that they don’t deport people just for being there illegally. If the buses had been full of citizens what would they have done- citizens without wealth or places to stay taken far from familiar places and dropped off on their island without warning? They’d have gotten social services involved to find them places to stay and work with them. Which is also what they did here.
So there wasn’t some “gotcha” to it, and if there were… for what? To prove that rich people don’t want to give millions of dollars of land to strangers? That’s pretty expected in general. At least in my life I haven’t been offered a free home let alone in million dollars zip codes.
As far as I am aware border states generally don’t roll out the red carpet and gift baskets for illegal immigration.
Some places offer the same or comprable or reduced social services to non documented persons, but that’s another discussion and there’s whole papers on the tax revenue provided by undocumented or non lawful residents.
So that’s the deal. I stand by my assessment. I’m not saying anything “pro” immigration or “sanctuary” here- one Can want restrictions to border crossing- that’s kinda the point of borders. That said- this particular example of “activism” or whatever it was supposed to be is like a crappy YouTube prank. Pointless and cruel. Destructive. Not helpful. Just for malice and ego.
Well… I guess the only people who should be glad they didn’t have to deal with the consequences are the people who masterminded and carried out the plot and didn’t go to prison and/or lose their jobs.
So like… maybe these politicians need to spend more time improving their states..?
Not shocking that someone who’s job is to see to the well being of a state, in a state where things aren’t so great, would rather pull stunts and point the finger of blame hundreds or thousands of miles away than either do the work or fess up that they aren’t right for the job.
You either accept reality or become delusional.
It's a shame people were used as pawns, but it's interesting when people won't make good on any portion of their boasting and virtue signaling.
They did, however, pass sanctuary laws—which are not the same as being a sanctuary city.
I know it seems like splitting hairs, but legal language is very specific and often confusing when put into a colloquial context.
1. Martha’s Vineyard is an island but it is not a single city or government, there are at least 6 small governments on the island and not all of them have or had “sanctuary” laws.
2. There isn’t actually a legal concept of a definition of “sanctuary city” or such. What that means is case by case. What is common, as with Martha’s Vineyard, is at least to either not report or detain undocumented persons who contact emergency services or use public and government avenues; or to ban or discourage the arrest and immigration reporting and processing of persons suspected to not be legal residents unless they have committed some type of other crime.
So then- the practice of “bussing” or “herding” the homeless has king been frowned on by most civilized folks- where one city or town etc. pushes their homeless to another location through harassment or coercion to push the problem on a neighbor. It’s just a shitty thing to do to the homeless but also to the neighbor. Selfish.
Just because a city will not take action to deport non legal persons who have not committed other crimes doesn’t mean that they are welcoming such people. You or I might give money to any poor families we saw at the grocers unable to pay or help pay for school for a local kid as a humanitarian gesture, but does that mean that you want or welcome strangers filling buses with people to send to you because you’re on record as having a soft heart?
As far as I am aware border states generally don’t roll out the red carpet and gift baskets for illegal immigration.
Some places offer the same or comprable or reduced social services to non documented persons, but that’s another discussion and there’s whole papers on the tax revenue provided by undocumented or non lawful residents.
So that’s the deal. I stand by my assessment. I’m not saying anything “pro” immigration or “sanctuary” here- one Can want restrictions to border crossing- that’s kinda the point of borders. That said- this particular example of “activism” or whatever it was supposed to be is like a crappy YouTube prank. Pointless and cruel. Destructive. Not helpful. Just for malice and ego.