How idiotic your insistence on the "they supported increased funding for border security"-talking point really is becomes very apparant if we apply the same logic to a different field:
Just imagine an employer lobbyist groups suggested increasing the minimum wage by $1 per hour, while at the same time suggesting to abolish overtime and holidy premiums, increase the maximum weekly working hours allowed, push for the employer side opting out of contributing to the healthcare for their employees, and reduce safety standards for their workers.
And then someone walks in and keeps saying
"but-but-but they support a higher minimum wage, so this proves that the employers totally dont want to exploit their employees"
"THEY SUPPORT A HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE!!!!111eleven"
------
You keep repeating the same short-sighted sort of argument, Fender. Yes, the Democrats did agree to some marginal increases for border security funding in the recent negotiations.
But the sum would be far too low, and whenever anyone tries to actually enforce border security, they cry foul, unleash a shitstorm of moral outrage on social media and the mainstreams news, and they sue against it and take any other possible measure to undercut it.
Trump wants asylum seekers to stay in Mexico until their application for asylum has actually been approved? Inhumane, inacceptable.
Trump wants to reject the option of seeking asylum for those who already broke the law of the land with their illegal entry? Inhumane, inacceptable, must be sued and struck down immediately by liberal California judges.
Pick up illegal immigrants close to the border, detain them? Inhumane, "we should 'catch and release' them", "we cant possibly detain children, but we also cannot possibly separate children from their parents" (so that everyone entering the country illegally while accompanied by children effectively gets a free pass.)
Of course the Democrats also largely support "sanctuary city" policies, which prohibit local law enforcement and officials in democrat-controlled cities and states from cooperating with ICE officers and requests to hold non-citizen inmates for deportation.
-----
And of course there is the following gem: in 1994, there was a ballot initiative in California, "Prop 187", which sought to prohibit illegal immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187Prop 187 was passed by the people of California with a robust 59-41 majority. In the end, it got struck down by a liberal judge on the ground that she "found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration." Moreover, "California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."
This was, of course, at a time when there was still a sizable conservative population in California, while the White House and federal policies were liberal.
Compare those arguments from the nineties to those used by present-day California in their fight against Trump's conservative federal administration, compare this to their "sanctuary state law" that they enacted in 2017:
http://fairus.org/legislation/state-local-legislation/california-sanctuary-state-bill-sb-54-summary-and-historyHypocrisy much?
At the end of the day, Democrats in California nowadays view state law to be above federal law when it comes to immigration, while they held the exact opposite viewpoint just two decades ago - flip-flopping to always side against immigration enforcement and against the reduction of incentives for illegal immigration.
-----
The bottom line is really simple:
"Rejecting all efficient forms of border enforcement" de facto does equal supporting "open borders", no matter the rosy PR bullshit and the empty pledges to support "strong and secure borders".
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 4 2019 06:11pm