The Honduran Elephant In The Room

[Zacha341]

^^^ Very interesting youtube. The bottom line is that the fallout of much of this remains abstract living up north here in Michigan/ Detroit.

I doubt we'll see the masses of migrants pushing up Woodward or Gratiot. So this invasion in some ways remains philosophically arms-length. Other folks [[southern border states) problem, and thus far easier to endorse when not actually in your backyard [[NIMBY)!

And while it would be a broad-brush to say all of the Honduran asylum seekers are criminal, it is equally naive to think there are not some with criminal backgrounds/ intentions.

[Richard]

I think the showdown is going to be in Tijuana,Vice News has a interview video where they are not very happy and with another 4000 expected to show up in the net few days it is going to get worse.The migrants are already complaining about the food and shelter being provided for them by the Mexican government,and there is an estimated 6 month backlog for processing.

Interesting how their stance is that they should have never been allowed to enter their country illegally.

There are theories that it is organized and funded by the Marxist governments of Venezuela and Honduras as payback for the alleged US attempts to help upset their power structures.All those interviewed stated that they learned about the caravan and collection points through the government controlled news.

The logistics of moving 7500 people 2500 miles is pretty complex,transportation,medical,food,sanitary etc.

When you look at the google photos of the caravans you see people marching in flip flops,women in heels,hair done up,men with hair care products applied,designer clothing,cell phone charging stations loaded with Iphones,children carrying games and toys etc. with everything pointing to it was not original intended to walk 2500 miles.

There are also photos of the US Red Cross packages of new clothing and shoes etc.

Like it was already mentioned earlier,in the interviews the reasons given for wanting to come to the US was because they were tired of being poor and wanted jobs in America,none of them mentioned life safety issues.

I agree that maybe you guys up there do not see a direct impact,and with me living in a heavy illegal immigrant state and community we do not actually see a direct impact,outside of the number of hit and run auto accidents and the general knowledge of the free clinics with medical being offered to everybody but US citizens.

On the employment side I see probably 4 in 10 applying for employment without papers,but that is a click that where one can work stays as an internal memo.

The total costs outside of California spending 20 some billion a year plus is still a massive number and does make one wonder if those funds could be spent on lifting up and providing a better life for actual American citizens first.

The 911 report said first and foremost the attacks could have been prevented had the immigration system in place worked as designed.

Most of those showing up at the border have no papers or identification,so how do you know who is bent on ill will or not,we Americans are not even allowed to operate a vehicle without proper identification,yet have no problem allowing border crossings of those who we have no way of identifying.

It took 6 people to bring down the towers and cost lives and now we want to allow 7000 to just cross the border and take that chance.

[aj3647]

Then you just have a few A-10s parked around the block for back up.

Of course you would advocate the use of A-10s against unarmed civilians, among them women and children. Of course you would.

Advocating for the wholesale execution of thousands of civilians for committing the federal equivalent of a misdemeanor offense. That says it all right there.

[Richard]

Of course you would advocate the use of A-10s against unarmed civilians, among them women and children. Of course you would.

Advocating for the wholesale execution of thousands of civilians for committing the federal equivalent of a misdemeanor offense. That says it all right there.

Let me know if I have this straight,the open borders leftist groups organize a caravan that was supposed to arrive days before the mid terms in order to spread discourse,along the route over 100 women and children have disappeared.

Nobody knows what happened to them,they just disappeared in the night,use your imagination as to what thier fate currently is.

So you do not have an issue with women and children disappearing in order to fit your cause but you would have a problem with causalities at the border if voilence erupts.

I am guessing that you actually see logic in that.

But then again the radical left seems to have a history of sacrificing others for thier meens without a second thought.As long as it is not them personally.So no surprise.

[aj3647]

Let me know if I have this straight,the open borders leftist groups organize a caravan that was supposed to arrive days before the mid terms in order to spread discourse,along the route over 100 women and children have disappeared.

Nobody knows what happened to them,they just disappeared in the night,use your imagination as to what thier fate currently is.

So you do not have an issue with women and children disappearing in order to fit your cause but you would have a problem with causalities at the border if voilence erupts.

I am guessing that you actually see logic in that.

But then again the radical left seems to have a history of sacrificing others for thier meens without a second thought.As long as it is not them personally.So no surprise.

Then pick up your rifle, tough guy, go down to the border, and shoot some women and kids. Put your money where your mouth is. Go kill some unarmed border crossers. Indulge your masturbatory fantasies of U.S. soldiers gunning down unarmed civilians all you want, it isn't going to happen. Our military has honor, which you lack. So if you want them to die, go grab your AR-15, drive down there, and kill them. What's wrong, too scared to do it yourself?

[oladub]

Advocating for the wholesale execution of thousands of civilians for committing the federal equivalent of a misdemeanor offense. That says it all right there.

Aj, I don't even support most capitol punishments but how do you propose preventing this organized attempt at committing thousand of criminal "misdemeanors"? We simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S.. undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, lawfully to become immigrants.

[Richard]

It just shows the hypocrisy when people lock thier doors and cars to prevent unwanted guests from entering,then campaign to unlock the borders.

[bust]

Can anyone point to any specific words from any specific senators, representatives, or governors who advocate unlocking the borders? People keep saying that's the democrats' position, but no one is saying that except the republicans in their accusations. The whole idea is partisan slander, intended to fool the gullible. And clearly there are plenty who are falling for it.

We need sensible immigration policy that puts those who play by the rules at the front of the line. Of course we do!

Advocating handling those who seek entry with compassion is not inconsistent with that. Even as we send them home or put them at the far back of the line. It's not a hard concept: we can be compassionate without opening our borders.

[Richard]

I guess providing sanctuary cities,free medical,legal and housing for Illegal immigrants is not advocating for illegals?

California spends 30.3 billion a year supporting illegal immigrants but has a US born homeless population of over 60,000,they may not be coming out and advocating open borders but they sure are not discouraging illegal immigration by funding and protecting it.

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.c...on-california/

The problem is that when the right comes up with securing the border and everybody gets in line like everybody else,they are immediately labeled as racist and anti immigrant.

You are correct the system is broken and outside of asylum the odds are 80% could never legally immigrate anyways,so they jump the border and enter illegally knowing full well they will be taken care of in some cities,so they say FU to the border because they are enabled.

Name one country that you as an American could enter illegally without suffering consequences even jail time,let alone one country that you could immigrate to without a substantial investment.Outside of being an English teacher.

Looking back,Schumer,Clinton’s,and Obama are all on record as calling for increased border security and not open borders,in the eight years that the previous president was in office all he managed was a bandaid with DACA with no clear ending or results without actually producing results.

He did it with an EO but that was it,wonder why?

[Zacha341]

Yes, YES!!

....We need sensible immigration policy that puts those who play by the rules at the front of the line. Of course we do!

Advocating handling those who seek entry with compassion is not inconsistent with that. Even as we send them home or put them at the far back of the line. It's not a hard concept: we can be compassionate without opening our borders.

[Zacha341]

Seems reasonable but this is about politics. So sorry, the argument for maintaining border integrity will be fought and scorned, even to a socially suicidal level! So long as the concept is falsely presented as solely as GOP ala the TRUMP! So were basically done.

The opposition only dig their heels in deeper. NO MATTER WHAT COUNTER ARGUMENT IS BROUGHT FORTH! Any response is met with you are a racist, trumpster, nationalist, selfish, hate-filled, etc.

The women and children factor will always win out as well. So we have it. Not much can stop the trend as it is going. Our folly and distraction will be crystal clear. Too late - but clear then that our capacity was already maxed.

We should've let basic common sense win out. We did not.

But after all, why not? What can be the risk in carelessly letting people in? What?

....We simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S.. undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, lawfully to become immigrants.

[Richard]

I am actually starting to embrace the open border thing,heck I could cut my payroll in half with illegals,they would work 10 hour shifts and not expect overtime or healthcare,the government can provide them with free housing and medical,so they do not need to make as much.

I could increase profits through reduced labor and expand business at half the cost.Why should I care if my fellow Americans have jobs,an endless supply of cheap labor can be a beautiful thing.

With the orange jerk in office now the economy is doing good,I put out a help wanted sign I only get a couple of applicants whereas 3 years ago it was 20 minimum per week looking for work.

With labor costs rising along with the economy he is really screwing things up.I say let em in.

[Jimaz]

This whole political border issue is a shiny distraction used to divert attention from the other economic border between the 99% and the 1%.

That is the border that must be breached.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Yep. I also say follow the money. Short-term, there's big money to be made at the front end of indiscriminate immigration. Appeasement, concern and love of the masses has little to do it -- despite all the jaw-boning. Yeah.

[oladub]

Seems reasonable but this is about politics. So sorry, the argument for maintaining border integrity will be fought and scorned, even to a socially suicidal level! So long as the concept is falsely presented as solely as GOP ala the TRUMP! So were basically done.

The opposition only dig their heels in deeper. NO MATTER WHAT COUNTER ARGUMENT IS BROUGHT FORTH! Any response is met with you are a racist, trumpster, nationalist, selfish, hate-filled, etc.

The women and children factor will always win out as well. So we have it. Not much can stop the trend as it is going. Our folly and distraction will be crystal clear. Too late - but clear then that our capacity was already maxed.

We should've let basic common sense win out. We did not.

But after all, why not? What can be the risk in carelessly letting people in? What?


Originally Posted by oladub
...."We simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S.. undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, lawfully to become immigrants."

While I fully agree with that last statement I previously posted without attribution, it is not mine. Even bust agreed with the sentiment about standing in line in posts 116 and 158 although we probably disagree how long the line should be. I quoted Senator Obama in 2005.

bust asked the following in post 158: "Can anyone point to any specific words from any specific senators, representatives, or governors who advocate unlocking the borders? People keep saying that's the democrats' position, but no one is saying that except the republicans in their accusations." I looked into this and learned a new vocabulary word.

asymptotic - "The definition of asymptotic is a line that approaches a curve but never touches" as in "The border clash was the culmination of a series of policy choices by Democrats over the past several years, asymptotically approaching open borders."

Yes, the Democrats are for Open Borders.

Similar article from the Atlantic: How the Democrats lost their way on Immigration.

Then there was former Democratic House Representative and runner up for head of the DNC Kieth Ellison wearing a shirt that read “yo no creo en fronteras,” which translates “I don’t believe in borders” if that counts "as advocating unlocking the borders".



Caveat: Some Republicans, including the Koch Brothers, also asymptotically support open borders for cheaper labor.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Oh, yes. If people think that some repubs aren't for open borders they're mistaken. Again this is mostly about money and power!

Very compelling article from the Atlantic from what I am reading so far! A long read but the issue requires such rather than the fast quips and assumptions. Thanks.

[Jimaz]

...I looked into this and learned a new vocabulary word.

asymptotic - "The definition of asymptotic is a line that approaches a curve but never touches" as in "The border clash was the culmination of a series of policy choices by Democrats over the past several years, asymptotically approaching open borders."

Yes, the Democrats are for Open Borders.

That link is inoperable as crafted but I can offer some insight into the term "asymptotic."

I was surprised that I once had to explain that mathematical term to an engineer. The classic case is from the study of conic sections in analytic geometry, specifically the hyperbola [[not hyperbole). The hyperbola is two curves, each with two arms that forever approach, but never intersect, two asymptotes [[straight lines). [[It's puzzling to think of it as the lines approaching the curves but I suppose it's all relative.)

What's interesting is that it has been proven that, no matter how far we go from the apex, the hyperbola forever approaches its asymptote yet never intersects it. It's mind-boggling that humanity can prove such a thing about something as remote as infinity. <insert applause for humanity here>

Back to the topic at hand, "Democrats over the past several years, asymptotically approaching open borders" means exactly the opposite of "Democrats are for Open Borders" as the latter assumes the curve has intersected its asymptote. It has not. By definition, an asymptote is never intersected by its curve.

[oladub]

That link is inoperable as crafted but I can offer some insight into the term "asymptotic."

I was surprised that I once had to explain that mathematical term to an engineer. The classic case is from the study of conic sections in analytic geometry, specifically the hyperbola [[not hyperbole). The hyperbola is two curves, each with two arms that forever approach but never intersect two asymptotes [[straight lines). [[It's puzzling to think of it as the opposite but I suppose it's all relative.)

What's interesting is that it has been proven that, no matter how far we go from the apex, the hyperbola forever approaches its asymptote but never intersects it. It's mind-boggling that humanity can prove such a thing about something as remote as infinity. <insert applause for humanity>

Back to the topic at hand, "Democrats over the past several years, asymptotically approaching open borders" means exactly the opposite of "Democrats are for Open Borders" as the latter assumes the curve has intersected its asymptote. It has not. By definition, an asymptote is never intersected by the curve.

I went back and edited the link to the article Yes, the Democrats are for Open Borders so it should work. Thank you for pointing out the bad link. My understanding of the dictionary definition of asymptotic I used, in context, was that The Democratic Party's position related to illegal immigration was getting closer to open borders. From the article, "The border clash was the culmination of a series of policy choices by Democrats over the past several years, asymptotically approaching open borders." Maybe you have a better word than the author of the article who used it. I did not claim the Democratic Party except for perhaps Kieth Ellison, was stupid or honest enough to actually say they "are for open borders". The two accompanying articles spelled out the Democrats' drift from representing American workers to prioritizing, promoting and rewarding illegal immigration.

[bust]

Oladub, that's a great article from the Atlantic. Fix your link and I'll read the other one you suggest too. [[It's still broken.)

We probably agree a lot more about this than you expect.

As you noted, I've already said our immigration policy must reward those who play by the rules.

And you may not have caught it but I am also on record here saying we need to end the abuse of the H1-B visa program. Those visas are intended to fill a gap when employers need skills the available American labor force is unable to supply. They go overwhelmingly to tech workers with skills that are in high demand.

The current minimum salary for a H1-B recipient is $60,000 and was set in 1989 when the visa was first created. It has not risen a dollar since, and is far out of line with the salaries the jobs they are being used to fill ordinarily pay.

Plenty of companies are abusing the visa to avoid paying the prevailing wage. H1-B workers become something like indentured servants, besides. Once they've found a company to sponsor them for the visa, they cannot lose their job, and they have little flexibility to change it, or they must go home.

American software companies are not the only ones abusing this visa. Infosys, TCS, and Wipro, all Indian companies, are perhaps the worst offenders. They supply a huge number of H1-B workers. Their profit comes by taking a big cut as middlemen. Many of their employees never even leave India, they work remotely from there.

There are legislators on both sides of the aisle who want to fix this.

Zoe Lofgren is a Democrat who has had one of the strongest voices on H1-B visa reform for many years. Among other things, she wants to significantly raise the minimum pay a H1-B recipient must earn. This will help bring the program in line with its original intention to attract necessary foreign talent, not cheap labor at the expense of American talent.

President Trump has also taken on this issue, and among other things wants to raise the minimum salary too. It's one of the rare areas where I find some agreement with him. Even while his hypocrisy is bald. He has a long history of profiting handily from cheap foreign labor and sometimes illegal labor, of course.

As mentioned in the Atlantic article, they are up against powerful lobbying from the companies who benefit from the current rules. I don't think there has been a bill that has been introduced that has made it out of committee. The reforms have stalled.

Back to the overall issue of immigration, broadening to include those like the asylum seekers in the migrant caravan, it certainly seems like democrats have recently been unable to unite behind a clear position. And some have said or done things many others wish they hadn't. Even if for many their biggest mistakes have not been their policy positions, but the ways they've allowed themselves to be mischaracterized by their political opposition.

I'm not sure how much is fair to read into that shirt worn by Keith Ellison. A quick google search revealed it's a concert t-shirt from a Los Angeles music band. That certainly falls short of an official policy opinion. He speaks publicly, a lot. If he truly advocates anything like that there'd be something on record, in his own words. If you have time, I encourage you to look into whether there is.

I still can't think of any politician elected to national office or a governorship, from either party, who advocates anything like an unlocked, open border. Or who promotes illegal immigration. I don't think one exists.

But there are many who advocate changes to our immigration laws. There is much that can be improved. And there are many who realize we must take practical steps to address the needs of the reality we have. It makes no sense to wish it away or pretend it isn't there.

I think we can pretty much all agree we must responsibly secure our borders. Even if we disagree whether tens of billions on a southern border wall would be money wasted. Cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants will be much more effective, and better for American workers. The ones that are not true asylum seekers are coming for work.

But we must handle all those who seek entry with compassion. Even as we send many home or put them at the back of the line.

I certainly prefer that approach to the racist xenophobia Trump has been unable to contain at so many of his rallies. The dark emotions he taps. The theater. The misuse of our military for political gain. There is no excuse for that.

We can manage immigration and enforce our borders without losing our soul.

[oladub]

That's frustrating. I had the link working last night but here it is again. I'm going to try to nail the other article down. Yes, the Democrats are for Open Borders https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-open-borders/

Yes, we do agree more than I would have thought about border security. When old immigration comments by Paul Krugman, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats are looked at, I can agree with those comments too. On the other end of the spectrum, I don't support Trump's mega wall. We would be better served by cheaper sound fences that even Hillary voted for but Congress did not fund. Israel depends mostly on fences in the face of bigger threats. Neither fences nor walls would address the 1/3 of illegal non-citizens who simply overstayed their visas. It is interesting that Hillary recently told the E.U. that it must reign in its open semi-border policy because that policy is responsible for the rise of anti-immigrant nationalism.

Trump had offered to accept far more DACA people than Democrats had hoped for in exchange for ending chain migration but was turned down by Democrats. I thought that was a fair offer. Democrats are now advocating that any 'caravan' of Central Americans be let in to have refugee hearings although the taxpayer cost of the first five years of the average refugee runs into the 10's of thousands of dollars that come out of other Americans' hides. Meanwhile a NY state judge has ruled that all 'refugees' in NY State are entitled to an expensive jury court case. We cannot afford the upfront money required to take in everyone in the world who shows up wanting a jury trial. Again those two lines of absolutely no borders and a de facto lack of borders are drawn closer.

The following BBC graph shows that immigration, legal and otherwise, is at near record highs. The sharp rise began during the Nixon administration. Restoring immigration levels to historical norm levels would be a start. Robotization is going to depress the need for American unskilled workers. The last thing they need is more competition for their jobs. As you mentioned, H-1b workers are an upscale version of hiring cheaper but legal foreign labor. I'm not sure why greenies are so sanguine about the Country being permanently paved over with sprawl to facilitate temporary profits for benefitting employers.

[bust]

Thanks Oladub, now I can see the other article.

It sure has a lot of partisan spin. And it was craftily written so at first read it's fairly convincing too. But look again and you realize the lines he draws to connect the dots don't really add up to the picture he claims to make. And he doesn't provide many dots to connect.

It appeared in the National Review, which used to always be considered far right. But now that today white nationalists have become so emboldened by the hateful rhetoric made commonplace by you-know-who, the likes of his former chief strategist, and that angry Texan whose head looks about to explode, I'm not sure what far right even means any more.

It's important to realize who the author is. Mark Krikorian has been the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies [[CIS) since 1995. He's a white nationalist. If not, he's pretty darn close. CIS was co-founded by a white nationalist. And it has been identified as an anti-immigrant hate group for repeatedly publishing racists and anti-semites and hiring a policy analyst notorious for racist pseudoscience. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, they circulated white nationalist content 2,012 times as of May 23, 2017.

In other words: be careful whom you listen to.

I know you're a libertarian. Do you think it is fair to call the Cato Institute the libertarian standard bearer? I thought you'd want to know: the Cato Institute has published many criticisms of the CIS.

In particular they have many times debunked the CIS' repeated claim that immigrants are abusing our social service programs. See here, here, and here. Cato Institute research shows the opposite: immigrants use social services at a lower rate than native-born Americans under similar economic circumstances.

I'll add one more thing regarding that graphic from the BBC. You probably know this already, but I'll remind you: we are fast approaching a difficult period generationally. Baby Boomers are an outsized proportion of our population, and they will soon retire, if they haven't already. Retired people don't produce much tax revenue, but it costs us a lot to look after them. And we should. But to be able to afford that we need to collect tax revenue from somewhere else. And we haven't been having enough babies to keep up. Immigrants tend to be young and hard working. They not only provide labor we need, they generate taxes we need so our social service systems don't collapse. At least not yet.

I'm not anti-immigration. Far from it. I know from living, studying, and working among so many what great benefits immigrants bring. But I distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. I've known some wonderful people who immigrated here illegally, but I believe our immigration must be managed in an orderly fashion, and should reward those who play by the rules.

I've been spending too long procrastinating on these forums lately, so I'm not going to try to go into any more detail than that.

Center for Immigration Studies [[CIS) executive director Mark Krikorian badly wants respect
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...te-nationalist

Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o.../pdf/edb17.pdf

[Richard]

Another way at looking at it is the baby boomers have a certain level of wealth that will also dissolve,so you guys need to either start making babies or bring in lower wage earning immigrants,because somebody will have to make up the short.

Funny how all the fancy charts do not distinguish between illegal immigrants and immigrants,people try and keep them in the same category,when they are not.

I was under the impression that it was under a general consensus that the issues stem from illegal immigrants and does not translate into anti immigration.

On the Honduran side of the topic hundreds deported by Mexico for violence,thousands are giving up and taking advantage of Mexico’s offer of a free ride home.

Tijuanas $30,000 per day in order to care for them all is running out and creating more motive for more to go home.

Interesting comment from one of the border crashers that got tear gassed,he was upset about the gas and said it was just not right,he never expirenced that in his home country.

So what level of voilence are they escaping if tear gas is the worst thing they have expirenced,kinda kills the asylum theory.

For those who have served their country,part of the training is being put in a sealed room,with no mask,while tear gas canisters are thrown in.

You just buck it up,it’s really not that bad for breakfast.

[oladub]

bust, I'm ok with the article. Either the numbers and quotes are right or wrong. Shoot the messenger if you wish. From the article, "Nancy Pelosi in 2013 put it very clearly: “If somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is not reason for deportation.” Hillary Clinton said much the same during one of the 2016 primary debates: “Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported.” Likewise with Bernie Sanders, at the same debate; in response to Jorge Ramos’s question, “And can you promise not to deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record?” Sanders answered, “I can make that promise.” They either said those things or they didn't. The article made a good case for how infinitely close leading Democrats are to openly advocating open borders.

I would call Justin Amash or Thomas Massie "libertarian standard bearers"; not the establishment CATO Institute or the Koch brothers seeking cheap labor.

What do you mean " immigrants use social services at a lower rate than native-born Americans under similar economic circumstances."?

Are you referring to illegal aliens or did you change the subject to H-1B computer guys from India? This is a thread about Honduran columns and we were talking about Democrats support of open borders. Illegal aliens tend to be poorly educated and have trouble with English. Public schooling costs over $12,000/year/student. Poorly educated people do not pay very much in taxes to offset such expenses and according to Robert Reich, drive down American wages. The average refugee from the middle east for example, every man, woman, and child, costs taxpayers about $65,000 each over the first five years. One family of four = $260,000 in taxpayer costs or cut benefits to Americans. Almost no one in the US lives in "similar economic circumstances" so that is a false equivalency. You also missed my point about sprawling population costing money and degrading ecology. Ecology isn't my forte but I'm surprised the left is so indifferent to the effect of the sprawl it sponsors.

It's interesting that you made the Ponzi scheme argument to justify bringing in immigrants to fund government programs. You must have also missed the point about robotics replacing huge numbers of workers. Gas station attendants gone, bank tellers largely replaced by ATM's, Walmart and McDonald's cashiers going, and truck and taxi driver jobs targeted by self driving vehicles. Even China is replacing its workers with robots. What are you going to do, open borders and bring in millions of more unskilled poorly educated people for jobs that don't exist to pay taxes just to perpetuate government Ponzi schemes? 20 years later you can import additional 10's of millions to keep Ponzi schemes going for the unemployed people you previously brought in. It won't work. Its a Ponzi scheme.

Libertarians are the opposite of authoritarians. You twice linked to the SPLC. The SPLC's involvement with the Missouri State Patrol fingering libertarians as domestic terrorists makes me think of that organization as the left's intellectual brownshirt organization in the way that Antifa is a possible incipient leftist brownshirt muscle organization. I can figuratively shoot the messenger too.

[coracle]

^ “Illegal aliens tend to be poorly educated and have trouble with English.”
We need them for Customer Service jobs.

[Richard]

Yea they built a couple of huge call centers outside of Tampa because people were done with calling them overseas and not being able to understand what they are saying.

So who do they staff them with? People that speak little English.