I'm more worried about the smugness, the certainly, about it all. On the one hand they point out how modern cultural mores, post-modernist sympathies, and law changes over the past 60 years have opened up political access and even advantage while on the other hand their amusement at success in turning the tables and staging a perfectly legal (in their eyes, right and proper) coup against the ethnic and religious majority of the US.
It is taking place in a very "slowly boil the frog" manner. The UK seems to have merely reached a more :in your face" stage already.
I was gonna ask what you thought of the outcome. I was a little surprised that Trump's support was not the kiss of death, based upon media rhetoric. I still maintain that the ginned-up hatred for Trump is because he is a disruptor of bilateral corruption.Is anyone else surprised by all the Trump-endorsed candidates winning their primaries? I was a bit disappointed that the Trump-endorsed Ken Paxton won the Texas republican primary unseating John Cornyn.
I know a lot of people consider Cornyn a "RINO," but I thought he was an effective politician. He still had a mind of his own and was not in "party lock-step." I'm sorry that Paxton won; I consider him a person of low moral character and a bit shady, but I suppose that's the political MO. A lot of people don't believe Paxton can beat the democrat's rising star and nutjob Talirico (a professed Christian who believes there are 6 sexes.![]()
)
Yup. So then it comes down to whose motives you trust most (or distrust the least.)Like the Democrats, it seems like Trump is moving towards the practice tossing someone to the curb if they dare disagree with him on anything that matters to him.
As an immigrant I can tell you it was tedious, pricey and took a while - back in the day.Talarico's ad stating that our borders should be like our front doors, with a big welcome mat in front misses the part about the double-locks on the door.
I read that the Fed would stop processing Customs stuff through those airports as an off-shoot to banning international flights, not that they would close the airports down entirely. The leverage would be the local economic impact ending the Customs processing would have.They are talking about the airports who are not working with ICE possibly being shut down if they still refuse to cooperate. From what I read, if the airports do not allow ICE, then the government will stop their screening of passengers, which will close the airport.
We are talking the ten largest airports in the United States, or at least some of the most important ones, if this happens.
Now that school is getting out and people will be coming and going for vacations, plus the usual business travel, having these airports shut down will be a major problem, once which the airlines can’t allow to happen, so I think they will be talking with the heads of the airports to allow ICE to do their job.
Here is the list of airports who have refused to cooperate with ICE.:
el JFK - New York City's primary international gateway → customs processing ENDED
e LaGuardia - New York → international arrivals rerouted el Newark - New Jersey → 5th busiest cargo hub in the US →SHUT for customs
EI LAX - Los Angeles → 2nd busiest international airport inAmerica → OFFLINE
el O'Hare - Chicago → one of the largest cargo airports on Earth→ GONE
El SFO — San Francisco → Silicon Valley's global gateway → customs ENDED
- SEA — Seattle → Pacific Rim trade hub → SHUT
- Logan - Boston → New England's only major international port→ OFFLINE
- I PHL -Philadelphia → GONE
- I PDX - Portland → GONE
- I DEN — Denver → the hub connecting the entire Mountain West to international routes → SHUT