Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

With respect to context, make moves toward some kind of action. Considering the topic is a remittance tax, possibly try to exert diplomatic pressure or deploy a counter tax.

Or gin up protests in the USA?

Or gin up protests in the USA?

Only if words and context are of little meaning. But hey, nothing might mean anything, I suppose. 

back when Joe's brain actually worked and his staffers with the autopen weren't running him....crazy.


https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1932650834371785186

Here is another one:


https://youtu.be/vf-k6qOfXz0?si=9CHvvwp7YULu3sF1

Back before he was trying to win National office, Bernie Sanders called open borders a "Koch brothers proposal" and said it is a "right wing proposal which says essentially there is no United States" then he finishes up with the manifestly obvious statement that "It would make everybody in America poorer".  

In my opinion the left and the bulk of the Republican establishment went absolutely bat-shit crazy on the immigration issue.  On the left, the leftist rank-and-file seems to have mostly followed their leaders but among Republicans that absolutely did NOT happen.  

On the right the revolt really got going with Dave Brat's Republican Primary takedown of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.  The dominant issue in that campaign was immigration.  Cantor had a massive financial and organizational advantage but the Republican rank-and-file effectively revolted against their party's leadership solely on the issue of immigration where Cantor was a typical shill for the 1% in favor of more-or-less open borders while Brat stood with the American People on the issue.  

What I don't understand and this is a serious question for the leftists on here is why did the rank-and-file leftists just follow along?  I have my own theories but you (leftists) will NOT like them and I'm open to hearing alternatives.  If you go back to probably less than 20 years ago and certainly if you go back to the Clinton Administration the immigration issue really wasn't partisan and, if anything, Democrats were probably MORE favorable to border controls.  See Biden's comments from 2007 linked by @Mdot21 , the Bernie Sanders video that I linked, and other statements including (I can't find it right now but) a comment about border security by Clinton in one of his SOTU addresses that sounds like Trump today.  Somehow between then and now the bulk of the Democratic Party seems to have gone from believing in the concept of the US as a Nation State to advocating for more-or-less open borders.  Why?  

With respect to context, make moves toward some kind of action. Considering the topic is a remittance tax, possibly try to exert diplomatic pressure or deploy a counter tax.

I want to say up front that I haven't taken the time to research and satisfy myself that a Mexican Senator actually said what was quoted above but somewhere earlier in this thread there was a quote by a Mexican Senator calling for the border to revert to what it was in 1830.  That is context.  

The President of a foreign country calling for protests IN the US while other high-ranking members of the government of that country publicly call for annexation of US territory may not be an "Act of War" to you and I'm not saying that it 100% IS and act of war but it is AT LEAST very close to it.  

Add in the context of probably 20M+ of that country's citizens having invaded the US and being in the US illegally while all of this is going on, and yeah, that is REALLY close to out-and-out war.  

Our response should be to fully militarize the Southern Border and treat the immivaders as enemy combatants to be shot on sight.  

New to politics?  That's the M.O.

I suppose. I assumed we’d try to stay more grounded. But if the fun is getting a rage chub of illusory problems and demanding outlandish and destructive solutions, is what it is. 

Isn’t that issue the “calling” in this story?

I have no idea what you mean by this, can you please clarify?

For reference, avoiding any semantics of what "calling for" might mean or imply, this is what she has been saying:

“We call on the Mexican community to act pacifically and not allow itself to be provoked,” she added.

But the Mexican president made clear that her government has an “unwavering commitment to the protection and defense of the human rights of Mexicans, regardless of their immigration status” — and called for due process in U.S. immigration proceedings.

“In this sense, we make a respectful but firm call to United States authorities for all immigration procedures to be carried out with adherence to due process, within a framework of respect for human dignity and the rule of law,” Sheinbaum said in her statement.

Sheinbaum pledged her government would continue using “all diplomatic and legal channels available” to make clear to the Trump administration that they oppose “practices that criminalize immigration and put at risk the safety and well-being of our communities in the United States.”

So, first off, I think it's just and fair to call for due process.  That's reasonable.  But, as has been reiterated on this thread multiple times, "due process" for non-citizens and illegal aliens is NOT the same as due process for American citizens.  But still, it should be followed regardless, such as it is outlined in the statutes of the USA.

The next bits though, the ones I highlighted-- this sounds an awful lot like a suggestion that the USA should not in fact be following its own laws regarding legal immigration and deportation.  And it also seems to suggest that the Mexican government has some right to claim ownership and impose its views and laws on people who are not actually living in Mexico.  And that's a major problem for me. 

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5340946-mexican-president-condemns-la-violence/

I also have a major issue with her language "put at risk the well-being of our communities in the United States." 

Lady, those are our communities.  You don't have any communities in the USA, by definition.  These aren't somehow embassies, full of Mexican nationals on Mexican soil contained within LA neighborhoods.  And she doesn't get to decide what puts our communities at risk. 

Yeah, completely agree,  you got in just before my edit to touch on that point as well.  I highlighted it and meant to address it, but hit "post" before I was ready, because some idgit here at work needed me to, well, do my job for a minute.