Sending migrants on buses, trains, and planes...

[joshuabgood]

People don't "take jobs" they create them. With more people comes more demand for, well, everything.

That doesn't jive with actual reality. What actually happens is a flood of migrants means a lot more drain on social services, far more than the migrants can afford to pay in.

If having more migrants caused some kind of economic miracle, then the places migrants are leaving would also have a strong economy.

I would think the golden rule would be a good place to start when we considered people who are moving, that is migrating. How would I want to be treated if I were in their shoes?

I would never be in the position of being a wealthy factory owner who nonetheless borrows $8,000 in order to illegally migrate to another country via multiple plane trips in order to seek more opportunities to acquire even more wealth.

And yet there is a compelling argument that immigration has historically driven, and remains the driver of, US economy. And that the distinction between the USA, and the economic backwash of Europe, is our quite liberal immigration policies.

So do you agree or disagree with the golden rule? That is, picture what life would be like for you were you an immigrant (well actually you are I believe =), and if you would want to freedom to move to provide better for yourself and our family.

[HondurasKeiser]

@Josh

If the states really wanted to comply with city migration laws, they could do so quickly and easily.

If a migrant who is experiencing danger, persecution for righteousness, a health crisis, or is not able to provide for himself and his family, there is not a way for him to quickly and easily get asylum in the USA before it is too late.

That is the difference.

Asylum is not for: "a health crisis, or is not able to provide for himself and his family".

[joshuabgood]

In one very real sense, any free market person, must also endorse the free movements of peoples. As peoples really are a labor market. You can't argue for free trade and for restricted immigration. This is precisely why NAFTA created the immigration boom in the 90s. A free economy, necessarily entails free movements of people.

Also there is a humanity argument for people being able to exercise their sovereign wills and relocate...just as most of us have at one time or another. One can make a compelling argument that artificial geo-political borders, are merely obstructions to natural God given rights. And usually serve merely as tools to manipulate peoples and economies in the interest of those that control the borders.

The question is, does God really want a bunch of violent competing geo-political nations states striving for dominion? Or does he have another way? If so what is it is and let's advocate for that. Hint - I don't think it includes borders or geo-political states.

[Josh]

If the states really wanted to comply with city migration laws, they could do so quickly and easily.

Cities have zero authority to enact laws against the free movement of people, and states have complete authority to offer a benefit to migrants who want to travel to another city by giving them a free bus ticket to do so.

In any case, the people who are travelling to Chicago are the migrants, not the State of Texas. The State of Texas merely hands out free bus tickets. What the migrants choose to do is up to them.

It does not make sense at all to say migrants should have an unlimited right to enter Texas from Mexico, but at the same time say they don't have a right to enter Chicago.

If a migrant who is experiencing danger, persecution for righteousness, a health crisis, or is not able to provide for himself and his family, there is not a way for him to quickly and easily get asylum in the USA before it is too late.

Can't he seek asylum in a different country? The USA is only a sensible option for people in Canada and Mexico. And perhaps Russia, if they're willing to paddle across the Bering Strait.

Nearly all of the current wave of migrants are not Canadians nor Mexicans.

[Ernie]

@Josh

If the states really wanted to comply with city migration laws, they could do so quickly and easily.

If a migrant who is experiencing danger, persecution for righteousness, a health crisis, or is not able to provide for himself and his family, there is not a way for him to quickly and easily get asylum in the USA before it is too late.

That is the difference.

Asylum is not for: "a health crisis, or is not able to provide for himself and his family".

Rewording...

If the states really wanted to comply with city migration laws, they could do so quickly and easily.

If a migrant who is experiencing danger, persecution for righteousness, a health crisis, or is not able to provide for himself and his family, there is not a way for him to quickly and easily get asylum or immigration to the USA before it is too late.

That is the difference.

[Ernie]

If the states really wanted to comply with city migration laws, they could do so quickly and easily.

Cities have zero authority to enact laws against the free movement of people, and states have complete authority to offer a benefit to migrants who want to travel to another city by giving them a free bus ticket to do so.

In any case, the people who are travelling to Chicago are the migrants, not the State of Texas. The State of Texas merely hands out free bus tickets. What the migrants choose to do is up to them.

It does not make sense at all to say migrants should have an unlimited right to enter Texas from Mexico, but at the same time say they don't have a right to enter Chicago.

The State of Texas knows Chicago's laws and is helping arrange the buses. The migrants know very little about what is going on and what Chicago is asking. They know what will happen when the migrants arrive in Chicago at odd hours and they don't really care.

Regardless of whether or not cities have authority in this situation I do not know. But I do know that Texas could easily and quickly comply with Chicago's requests, IF THEY WANTED TO.

I don't know of anyone on MN who thinks that migrants have an unlimited right to enter Texas from Mexico.
Neither does Texas have a right to send migrants to a city during hours when they are not prepared to handle the migrants and take care of them.

You can defend Texas the rest of 2024 and beyond, but in the end, you won't have to answer to me for your views. We will both answer to the same Judge, a Judge who has lots to say about immigration and emigration.

[Bootstrap]

The State of Texas knows Chicago's laws and is helping arrange the buses. The migrants know very little about what is going on and what Chicago is asking. They know what will happen when the migrants arrive in Chicago at odd hours and they don't really care.

It's not that they don't care. They want to provoke that in order to thumb their face at Chicago for political purposes. Knowing full well what this does to the migrants. But being mean to the refugees is also part of their messaging, so that's a bonus for them. I mean, just look at how they use this in campaigning.

There's really no innocent explanation for this. It's not hard to have buses arrive at times that Chicago prefers to enable them to deal with the refugees.

[Josh]

The State of Texas knows Chicago's laws and is helping arrange the buses. The migrants know very little about what is going on and what Chicago is asking. They know what will happen when the migrants arrive in Chicago at odd hours and they don't really care.

Strictly speaking, the states are not subject to city laws, and certainly not city laws in other states.

Regardless of whether or not cities have authority in this situation I do not know. But I do know that Texas could easily and quickly comply with Chicago's requests, IF THEY WANTED TO.

Texas has no responsibility to comply with Chicago laws. At all. Particularly laws that restrict the free movement of people inside the United States.

I don't know of anyone on MN who thinks that migrants have an unlimited right to enter Texas from Mexico.
Neither does Texas have a right to send migrants to a city during hours when they are not prepared to handle the migrants and take care of them.

Texas doesn't "send" migrants anywhere; it gives them a free bus ticket. The migrants do have a complete and unrestricted right to enter Chicago at any time of day, for any reason. (So do you and I.)

This is a highly political issue, with two sides of the debate:

Side #1 wants to allow lots of migration into the U.S., but doesn't want the migrants to be coming to liberal-controlled cities in large numbers. They would prefer the migrants stay elsewhere.

Side #2 doesn't want to allow lots of migration into border states like Texas, and wants the migrants to relocate to the liberal-controlled sanctuary cities. They have found a technically legal means to do so that the migrants want to do themselves.

Both sides are doing this for political, not humanitarian, reasons. At a certain point, however, claiming to be a "sanctuary city" whilst simultaneously trying to restrict the completely legal entry of migrants into your city smacks of a certain kind of hypocrisy. I have a hard time not sympathising with Side #2 which is simply testing how sincere the sanctuary cities' policies actually are.

Likewise, a state like Texas has done a huge amount - probably more than any other state, at this point in time - to accept and integrate migrants into its society. It is accepting the largest number of arrivals and has the second-highest population of illegal aliens out of any state. It seems fair for them to facilitate the movement of migrants who wish to go to a sanctuary city.

[Josh]

It's not that they don't care. They want to provoke that in order to thumb their face at Chicago for political purposes. Knowing full well what this does to the migrants. But being mean to the refugees is also part of their messaging, so that's a bonus for them. I mean, just look at how they use this in campaigning.

How is it being "mean"? The migrants aren't forced to go. The simply fact is that most want to go to America's largest cities. So they do.

There's really no innocent explanation for this. It's not hard to have buses arrive at times that Chicago prefers to enable them to deal with the refugees.

The actual issue in question is not the arrival times, and it is normal for buses to arrive at all hours of the night. The actual issue in question is that Chicago wants to limit the total volume of arrivals. In essence, Chicago wants its own border controls against illegal aliens. And it's been rather clear in U.S. law for a long time that states and cities can't enact their own border controls against other states.

If it really is a good thing to limit the number of arrivals.. then is it a good thing or not to limit arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border?

[Bootstrap]

This is a highly political issue, with two sides of the debate:

But that's precisely the wrong way to frame it.

Immigrants arrive. How do the various parts of government work together to handle that well? Not as a political fight, but as a practical issue of governing?

There's a stream of American politics that plays by these rules: make it a fight, don't cooperate, be a little mean when you can and parade that to your followers. It plays well to a certain political base.