oski003 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GrinandBearit said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GrinandBearit said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SBGold said:

---

--Fast, understandable timelines, fair processing

---

To me this is the biggest issue by far. Immigration proceedings take forever. It's why we wind up with so many people in limbo.

---

It is an issue but a larger reason so many illegal immigrants are or were in limbo is because of the asylum policies under Biden.

---

The problem existed long before that, though. There are structural issues that can't just be pinned on any one president and that Congress has regularly refused to address.

---

It did previously exist only to be exponentially exacerbated by the Biden administration. Congress needs to step up, we agree there.

---

I think you don't have a firm grasp on the meaning of exponentially.

---

Was your misleading 4.4 million figure one family turned away at the border 1 million times?

---

GrinandBearit said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GrinandBearit said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GrinandBearit said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SBGold said:

---

--Fast, understandable timelines, fair processing

---

To me this is the biggest issue by far. Immigration proceedings take forever. It's why we wind up with so many people in limbo.

---

It is an issue but a larger reason so many illegal immigrants are or were in limbo is because of the asylum policies under Biden.

---

The problem existed long before that, though. There are structural issues that can't just be pinned on any one president and that Congress has regularly refused to address.

---

It did previously exist only to be exponentially exacerbated by the Biden administration. Congress needs to step up, we agree there.

---

I think you don't have a firm grasp on the meaning of exponentially.

---

I think you have no real counter argument so you are attacking the wording instead of the facts.

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

Biden and Kamala's actions:
1) Allow practically everyone in.
2) Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling "refugees" from countries thousands of miles away to our border
3) When the democrats realize the American people don't like this, start turning people away from the border who have now arrived in these massive caravans.
4) Create a weak plan that normalizes large amounts of illegal immigration but is a whole lot better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years of their administration.
5) Take credit for turning away 4.4 million illegal immigrants when millions arrived at our doorstep egged on by democratic policy and rushing to get in before Trump makes it hard for them to do so. Many of those turned away are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in.

---

• The Fact Check: The Biden administration never had an "open border" policy; they carried out more formal removals and border returns than any single presidential term since George W. Bush.
• Data to Use: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the administration oversaw nearly 4.4 million total repatriations (deportations and returns) through early 2024. During its tenure, the administration consistently applied Title 42 public health expulsions and Title 8 immigration enforcement.
• The Argument: An administration allowing "practically everyone in" would not execute millions of deportations and returns, which actually outpaced the total removals from Donald Trump's first term.

• The Fact Check: Migrant surges are driven by catastrophic global and regional factors ("push factors"), not unilateral U.S. policy ("pull factors").
  
• Data to Use: The historic spike in migration at the southern border was fueled by economic collapse, authoritarian violence, and climate crises in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, alongside a broader global migration crisis.
• The Argument: Shuttling and smuggling operations are run by violent transnational criminal cartels, not domestic political parties. Characterizing migration as a partisan-orchestrated phenomenon ignores the complex humanitarian crises forcing families to flee their home countries.

• The Fact Check: The administration spent years attempting to pass strict, comprehensive border legislation, which was repeatedly blocked by congressional gridlock. When Congress failed to act, executive action was deployed.
• Data to Use: In early 2024, the administration backed a highly restrictive, bipartisan border security bill crafted by conservative and liberal senators. When that legislation failed to pass due to partisan pressure, President Biden issued a sweeping [June 2024 Presidential Proclamation](1.3.1, 1.3.6). This order effectively shut down asylum processing between ports of entry when daily border encounters averaged over 2,500.

• The Argument: The administration's policy did not "normalize" illegal immigration; it severely tightened enforcement. Immigration advocacy groups and the ACLU actually sued the administration, arguing that Biden's 2024 restrictions were too harsh and mimicked restrictive, Trump-era policies.

• The Fact Check: Enforcement was severe during the first three years of the administration; it was simply handling a higher volume of total crossers.
• Data to Use: In fiscal year 2023 alone, DHS executed over 142,000 interior removals and hundreds of thousands of border returns. The administration did not wait until year four to enforce the border; they used Title 42 expulsions up until its legal expiration in May 2023, immediately replacing it with stricter Title 8 penalties, including a five-year ban on reentry and criminal prosecution for repeat crossers.

• The Fact Check: While "recidivism" (the same person attempting to cross multiple times) does occur, the Biden administration transitioned away from policies that caused it and increased the legal penalties for repeat crossers.
• Data to Use: Under the pandemic-era Title 42 policy (used by both Trump and Biden), migrants were quickly expelled without formal immigration marks on their records, which naturally led to high recidivism rates. However, when the Biden administration transitioned fully to Title 8 enforcement in 2023, it imposed formal removals. A formal removal carries severe legal consequences, meaning repeat attempts result in automatic criminal prosecution and a minimum 5-year bar on legal entry.
• The Argument: The 4.4 million statistic represents a massive mobilization of operational enforcement resourcesincluding expanding repatriation flights to distant countries like India, China, and nations in Africa. Attributing the surge strictly to "democratic policy" ignores that migration waves have steadily risen across multiple presidential administrations over the last two decades.

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

Biden and Kamala's actions:
1) Allow practically everyone in.
2) Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling "refugees" from countries thousands of miles away to our border
3) When the democrats realize the American people don't like this, start turning people away from the border who have now arrived in these massive caravans.
4) Create a weak plan that normalizes large amounts of illegal immigration but is a whole lot better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years of their administration.
5) Take credit for turning away 4.4 million illegal immigrants when millions arrived at our doorstep egged on by democratic policy and rushing to get in before Trump makes it hard for them to do so. Many of those turned away are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in.

---

Yeah, these are pretty dramatically refuted by data, historical facts and the knowledge of a do-nothing Congress during this period.

Claim 1: "Allow practically everyone in."

• The Fact Check: The Biden administration never had an "open border" policy; they carried out more formal removals and border returns than any single presidential term since George W. Bush.
• Data to Use: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the administration oversaw nearly 4.4 million total repatriations (deportations and returns) through early 2024. During its tenure, the administration consistently applied Title 42 public health expulsions and Title 8 immigration enforcement.
• The Argument: An administration allowing "practically everyone in" would not execute millions of deportations and returns, which actually outpaced the total removals from Donald Trump's first term.

Claim 2: "Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling refugees..."

• The Fact Check: Migrant surges are driven by catastrophic global and regional factors ("push factors"), not unilateral U.S. policy ("pull factors").
  
• Data to Use: The historic spike in migration at the southern border was fueled by economic collapse, authoritarian violence, and climate crises in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, alongside a broader global migration crisis.
• The Argument: Shuttling and smuggling operations are run by violent transnational criminal cartels, not domestic political parties. Characterizing migration as a partisan-orchestrated phenomenon ignores the complex humanitarian crises forcing families to flee their home countries.

Claim 3 & 4: "Democrats started turning people away only when public opinion shifted, creating a 'weak plan' that normalizes illegal immigration."

• The Fact Check: The administration spent years attempting to pass strict, comprehensive border legislation, which was repeatedly blocked by congressional gridlock. When Congress failed to act, executive action was deployed.
• Data to Use: In early 2024, the administration backed a highly restrictive, bipartisan border security bill crafted by conservative and liberal senators. When that legislation failed to pass due to partisan pressure, President Biden issued a sweeping [June 2024 Presidential Proclamation](1.3.1, 1.3.6). This order effectively shut down asylum processing between ports of entry when daily border encounters averaged over 2,500.

• The Argument: The administration's policy did not "normalize" illegal immigration; it severely tightened enforcement. Immigration advocacy groups and the ACLU actually sued the administration, arguing that Biden's 2024 restrictions were too harsh and mimicked restrictive, Trump-era policies.

Claim 4 (Continued): "...better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years."

• The Fact Check: Enforcement was severe during the first three years of the administration; it was simply handling a higher volume of total crossers.
• Data to Use: In fiscal year 2023 alone, DHS executed over 142,000 interior removals and hundreds of thousands of border returns. The administration did not wait until year four to enforce the border; they used Title 42 expulsions up until its legal expiration in May 2023, immediately replacing it with stricter Title 8 penalties, including a five-year ban on reentry and criminal prosecution for repeat crossers.

Claim 5: "Taking credit for turning away 4.4 million when millions arrived... and many are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in."

• The Fact Check: While "recidivism" (the same person attempting to cross multiple times) does occur, the Biden administration transitioned away from policies that caused it and increased the legal penalties for repeat crossers.
• Data to Use: Under the pandemic-era Title 42 policy (used by both Trump and Biden), migrants were quickly expelled without formal immigration marks on their records, which naturally led to high recidivism rates. However, when the Biden administration transitioned fully to Title 8 enforcement in 2023, it imposed formal removals. A formal removal carries severe legal consequences, meaning repeat attempts result in automatic criminal prosecution and a minimum 5-year bar on legal entry.
• The Argument: The 4.4 million statistic represents a massive mobilization of operational enforcement resourcesincluding expanding repatriation flights to distant countries like India, China, and nations in Africa. Attributing the surge strictly to "democratic policy" ignores that migration waves have steadily risen across multiple presidential administrations over the last two decades.

We are always better when we VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

Biden and Kamala's actions:
1) Allow practically everyone in.
2) Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling "refugees" from countries thousands of miles away to our border
3) When the democrats realize the American people don't like this, start turning people away from the border who have now arrived in these massive caravans.
4) Create a weak plan that normalizes large amounts of illegal immigration but is a whole lot better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years of their administration.
5) Take credit for turning away 4.4 million illegal immigrants when millions arrived at our doorstep egged on by democratic policy and rushing to get in before Trump makes it hard for them to do so. Many of those turned away are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in.

---

Yeah, these are pretty dramatically refuted by data, historical facts and the knowledge of a do-nothing Congress during this period.

Claim 1: "Allow practically everyone in."

• The Fact Check: The Biden administration never had an "open border" policy; they carried out more formal removals and border returns than any single presidential term since George W. Bush.
• Data to Use: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the administration oversaw nearly 4.4 million total repatriations (deportations and returns) through early 2024. During its tenure, the administration consistently applied Title 42 public health expulsions and Title 8 immigration enforcement.
• The Argument: An administration allowing "practically everyone in" would not execute millions of deportations and returns, which actually outpaced the total removals from Donald Trump's first term.

Claim 2: "Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling refugees..."

• The Fact Check: Migrant surges are driven by catastrophic global and regional factors ("push factors"), not unilateral U.S. policy ("pull factors").
  
• Data to Use: The historic spike in migration at the southern border was fueled by economic collapse, authoritarian violence, and climate crises in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, alongside a broader global migration crisis.
• The Argument: Shuttling and smuggling operations are run by violent transnational criminal cartels, not domestic political parties. Characterizing migration as a partisan-orchestrated phenomenon ignores the complex humanitarian crises forcing families to flee their home countries.

Claim 3 & 4: "Democrats started turning people away only when public opinion shifted, creating a 'weak plan' that normalizes illegal immigration."

• The Fact Check: The administration spent years attempting to pass strict, comprehensive border legislation, which was repeatedly blocked by congressional gridlock. When Congress failed to act, executive action was deployed.
• Data to Use: In early 2024, the administration backed a highly restrictive, bipartisan border security bill crafted by conservative and liberal senators. When that legislation failed to pass due to partisan pressure, President Biden issued a sweeping [June 2024 Presidential Proclamation](1.3.1, 1.3.6). This order effectively shut down asylum processing between ports of entry when daily border encounters averaged over 2,500.

• The Argument: The administration's policy did not "normalize" illegal immigration; it severely tightened enforcement. Immigration advocacy groups and the ACLU actually sued the administration, arguing that Biden's 2024 restrictions were too harsh and mimicked restrictive, Trump-era policies.

Claim 4 (Continued): "...better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years."

• The Fact Check: Enforcement was severe during the first three years of the administration; it was simply handling a higher volume of total crossers.
• Data to Use: In fiscal year 2023 alone, DHS executed over 142,000 interior removals and hundreds of thousands of border returns. The administration did not wait until year four to enforce the border; they used Title 42 expulsions up until its legal expiration in May 2023, immediately replacing it with stricter Title 8 penalties, including a five-year ban on reentry and criminal prosecution for repeat crossers.

Claim 5: "Taking credit for turning away 4.4 million when millions arrived... and many are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in."

• The Fact Check: While "recidivism" (the same person attempting to cross multiple times) does occur, the Biden administration transitioned away from policies that caused it and increased the legal penalties for repeat crossers.
• Data to Use: Under the pandemic-era Title 42 policy (used by both Trump and Biden), migrants were quickly expelled without formal immigration marks on their records, which naturally led to high recidivism rates. However, when the Biden administration transitioned fully to Title 8 enforcement in 2023, it imposed formal removals. A formal removal carries severe legal consequences, meaning repeat attempts result in automatic criminal prosecution and a minimum 5-year bar on legal entry.
• The Argument: The 4.4 million statistic represents a massive mobilization of operational enforcement resourcesincluding expanding repatriation flights to distant countries like India, China, and nations in Africa. Attributing the surge strictly to "democratic policy" ignores that migration waves have steadily risen across multiple presidential administrations over the last two decades.

We are always better when we VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

Your very first point is false or misleading.

1) I never said it was an open border policy so you are arguing with yourself.

2) The 4.4 million number is bs. Repatriation? It includes simply kicking people out at the border.

Also, Biden's government funded NGOs who funded these caravans and encouraged folks to enter the US.

Yes, Biden's pre-election 2024 policy was good, which is why liberal groups fought it.

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

Biden and Kamala's actions:
1) Allow practically everyone in.
2) Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling "refugees" from countries thousands of miles away to our border
3) When the democrats realize the American people don't like this, start turning people away from the border who have now arrived in these massive caravans.
4) Create a weak plan that normalizes large amounts of illegal immigration but is a whole lot better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years of their administration.
5) Take credit for turning away 4.4 million illegal immigrants when millions arrived at our doorstep egged on by democratic policy and rushing to get in before Trump makes it hard for them to do so. Many of those turned away are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in.

---

Yeah, these are pretty dramatically refuted by data, historical facts and the knowledge of a do-nothing Congress during this period.

Claim 1: "Allow practically everyone in."

• The Fact Check: The Biden administration never had an "open border" policy; they carried out more formal removals and border returns than any single presidential term since George W. Bush.
• Data to Use: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the administration oversaw nearly 4.4 million total repatriations (deportations and returns) through early 2024. During its tenure, the administration consistently applied Title 42 public health expulsions and Title 8 immigration enforcement.
• The Argument: An administration allowing "practically everyone in" would not execute millions of deportations and returns, which actually outpaced the total removals from Donald Trump's first term.

Claim 2: "Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling refugees..."

• The Fact Check: Migrant surges are driven by catastrophic global and regional factors ("push factors"), not unilateral U.S. policy ("pull factors").
  
• Data to Use: The historic spike in migration at the southern border was fueled by economic collapse, authoritarian violence, and climate crises in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, alongside a broader global migration crisis.
• The Argument: Shuttling and smuggling operations are run by violent transnational criminal cartels, not domestic political parties. Characterizing migration as a partisan-orchestrated phenomenon ignores the complex humanitarian crises forcing families to flee their home countries.

Claim 3 & 4: "Democrats started turning people away only when public opinion shifted, creating a 'weak plan' that normalizes illegal immigration."

• The Fact Check: The administration spent years attempting to pass strict, comprehensive border legislation, which was repeatedly blocked by congressional gridlock. When Congress failed to act, executive action was deployed.
• Data to Use: In early 2024, the administration backed a highly restrictive, bipartisan border security bill crafted by conservative and liberal senators. When that legislation failed to pass due to partisan pressure, President Biden issued a sweeping [June 2024 Presidential Proclamation](1.3.1, 1.3.6). This order effectively shut down asylum processing between ports of entry when daily border encounters averaged over 2,500.

• The Argument: The administration's policy did not "normalize" illegal immigration; it severely tightened enforcement. Immigration advocacy groups and the ACLU actually sued the administration, arguing that Biden's 2024 restrictions were too harsh and mimicked restrictive, Trump-era policies.

Claim 4 (Continued): "...better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years."

• The Fact Check: Enforcement was severe during the first three years of the administration; it was simply handling a higher volume of total crossers.
• Data to Use: In fiscal year 2023 alone, DHS executed over 142,000 interior removals and hundreds of thousands of border returns. The administration did not wait until year four to enforce the border; they used Title 42 expulsions up until its legal expiration in May 2023, immediately replacing it with stricter Title 8 penalties, including a five-year ban on reentry and criminal prosecution for repeat crossers.

Claim 5: "Taking credit for turning away 4.4 million when millions arrived... and many are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in."

• The Fact Check: While "recidivism" (the same person attempting to cross multiple times) does occur, the Biden administration transitioned away from policies that caused it and increased the legal penalties for repeat crossers.
• Data to Use: Under the pandemic-era Title 42 policy (used by both Trump and Biden), migrants were quickly expelled without formal immigration marks on their records, which naturally led to high recidivism rates. However, when the Biden administration transitioned fully to Title 8 enforcement in 2023, it imposed formal removals. A formal removal carries severe legal consequences, meaning repeat attempts result in automatic criminal prosecution and a minimum 5-year bar on legal entry.
• The Argument: The 4.4 million statistic represents a massive mobilization of operational enforcement resourcesincluding expanding repatriation flights to distant countries like India, China, and nations in Africa. Attributing the surge strictly to "democratic policy" ignores that migration waves have steadily risen across multiple presidential administrations over the last two decades.

We are always better when we VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

Your very first point is false or misleading.

1) I never said it was an open border policy so you are arguing with yourself.

2) The 4.4 million number is bs. Repatriation? It includes simply kicking people out at the border.

Also, Biden's government funded NGOs who funded these caravans and encouraged folks to enter the US.

Yes, Biden's pre-election 2024 policy was good, which is why liberal groups fought it.

---

All I read from MAGA types is that Biden had this let them in border policy, if you don't agree with that, thank you. You actually know some facts.


As for the 4.4 million number, isn't immigration enforcement about keeping people out of entering that should not be entering? It's a great fact for the Biden admin.

As for your #2, the facts are these: Did They "Fund the Caravans" Directly?
No. There is no evidence that the U.S. government or its funded NGOs organized or paid people to form caravans.
Caravans are typically self-organized by migrants for physical safety against cartels and kidnappers, or exploited by human smugglers who charge fees to guide them. While some local, non-funded advocacy groups (like Pueblo Sin Fronteras) have historically helped coordinate caravan logistics, the large international NGOs receiving federal U.S. dollars explicitly stated they only provided retroactive humanitarian relief to people already in transitthey did not sponsor the travel itself.

I see you accepted the rest of the counters I presented. Thanks for that and have a great rest of your week.

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

Biden and Kamala's actions:
1) Allow practically everyone in.
2) Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling "refugees" from countries thousands of miles away to our border
3) When the democrats realize the American people don't like this, start turning people away from the border who have now arrived in these massive caravans.
4) Create a weak plan that normalizes large amounts of illegal immigration but is a whole lot better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years of their administration.
5) Take credit for turning away 4.4 million illegal immigrants when millions arrived at our doorstep egged on by democratic policy and rushing to get in before Trump makes it hard for them to do so. Many of those turned away are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in.

---

Yeah, these are pretty dramatically refuted by data, historical facts and the knowledge of a do-nothing Congress during this period.

Claim 1: "Allow practically everyone in."

• The Fact Check: The Biden administration never had an "open border" policy; they carried out more formal removals and border returns than any single presidential term since George W. Bush.
• Data to Use: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the administration oversaw nearly 4.4 million total repatriations (deportations and returns) through early 2024. During its tenure, the administration consistently applied Title 42 public health expulsions and Title 8 immigration enforcement.
• The Argument: An administration allowing "practically everyone in" would not execute millions of deportations and returns, which actually outpaced the total removals from Donald Trump's first term.

Claim 2: "Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling refugees..."

• The Fact Check: Migrant surges are driven by catastrophic global and regional factors ("push factors"), not unilateral U.S. policy ("pull factors").
  
• Data to Use: The historic spike in migration at the southern border was fueled by economic collapse, authoritarian violence, and climate crises in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, alongside a broader global migration crisis.
• The Argument: Shuttling and smuggling operations are run by violent transnational criminal cartels, not domestic political parties. Characterizing migration as a partisan-orchestrated phenomenon ignores the complex humanitarian crises forcing families to flee their home countries.

Claim 3 & 4: "Democrats started turning people away only when public opinion shifted, creating a 'weak plan' that normalizes illegal immigration."

• The Fact Check: The administration spent years attempting to pass strict, comprehensive border legislation, which was repeatedly blocked by congressional gridlock. When Congress failed to act, executive action was deployed.
• Data to Use: In early 2024, the administration backed a highly restrictive, bipartisan border security bill crafted by conservative and liberal senators. When that legislation failed to pass due to partisan pressure, President Biden issued a sweeping [June 2024 Presidential Proclamation](1.3.1, 1.3.6). This order effectively shut down asylum processing between ports of entry when daily border encounters averaged over 2,500.

• The Argument: The administration's policy did not "normalize" illegal immigration; it severely tightened enforcement. Immigration advocacy groups and the ACLU actually sued the administration, arguing that Biden's 2024 restrictions were too harsh and mimicked restrictive, Trump-era policies.

Claim 4 (Continued): "...better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years."

• The Fact Check: Enforcement was severe during the first three years of the administration; it was simply handling a higher volume of total crossers.
• Data to Use: In fiscal year 2023 alone, DHS executed over 142,000 interior removals and hundreds of thousands of border returns. The administration did not wait until year four to enforce the border; they used Title 42 expulsions up until its legal expiration in May 2023, immediately replacing it with stricter Title 8 penalties, including a five-year ban on reentry and criminal prosecution for repeat crossers.

Claim 5: "Taking credit for turning away 4.4 million when millions arrived... and many are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in."

• The Fact Check: While "recidivism" (the same person attempting to cross multiple times) does occur, the Biden administration transitioned away from policies that caused it and increased the legal penalties for repeat crossers.
• Data to Use: Under the pandemic-era Title 42 policy (used by both Trump and Biden), migrants were quickly expelled without formal immigration marks on their records, which naturally led to high recidivism rates. However, when the Biden administration transitioned fully to Title 8 enforcement in 2023, it imposed formal removals. A formal removal carries severe legal consequences, meaning repeat attempts result in automatic criminal prosecution and a minimum 5-year bar on legal entry.
• The Argument: The 4.4 million statistic represents a massive mobilization of operational enforcement resourcesincluding expanding repatriation flights to distant countries like India, China, and nations in Africa. Attributing the surge strictly to "democratic policy" ignores that migration waves have steadily risen across multiple presidential administrations over the last two decades.

We are always better when we VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

Your very first point is false or misleading.

1) I never said it was an open border policy so you are arguing with yourself.

2) The 4.4 million number is bs. Repatriation? It includes simply kicking people out at the border.

Also, Biden's government funded NGOs who funded these caravans and encouraged folks to enter the US.

Yes, Biden's pre-election 2024 policy was good, which is why liberal groups fought it.

---

All I read from MAGA types is that Biden had this let them in border policy, if you don't agree with that, thank you. You actually know some facts.


As for the 4.4 million number, isn't immigration enforcement about keeping people out of entering that should not be entering? It's a great fact for the Biden admin.

As for your #2, the facts are these: Did They "Fund the Caravans" Directly?
No. There is no evidence that the U.S. government or its funded NGOs organized or paid people to form caravans.
Caravans are typically self-organized by migrants for physical safety against cartels and kidnappers, or exploited by human smugglers who charge fees to guide them. While some local, non-funded advocacy groups (like Pueblo Sin Fronteras) have historically helped coordinate caravan logistics, the large international NGOs receiving federal U.S. dollars explicitly stated they only provided retroactive humanitarian relief to people already in transitthey did not sponsor the travel itself.

I see you accepted the rest of the counters I presented. Thanks for that and have a great rest of your week.

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

https://cis.org/Bensman/UN-Budgets-Millions-USBound-Migrants-2024

"The document makes clear in writing that the UN and these partners know their endeavor aids, abets, and makes possible the "onward movement" of immigrants who intend to illegally cross borders, especially to get into the United States."

"Some 57 international organizations would manage the handouts of $273 million, while 132 "national NGOs" and "civil service organizations" would handle $70 million in aid. Fifteen UN agencies would get the lion's share at $1.2 billion."

https://homeland.house.gov/2025/07/17/its-a-pipeline-experts-reveal-how-taxpayer-funded-ngos-facilitated-human-trafficking-profited-from-biden-harris-border-crisis/

"In the hearing, witnesses laid out in detail how NGOs received more than $6 billion from the Biden-Harris administration, including through grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and others. They also testified about how the Biden-Harris administration handed over unaccompanied alien children (UACs) to NGOs, primarily at the border, who then delivered them to poorly-vetted sponsors."

"repaid them by driving an estimated $6 billion to a conglomerate of 15 UN agencies and 230 NGOs, as recently calculated by the Center for Immigration Studies, to do this work for them."


https://gooden.house.gov/2021/12/gooden-calls-for-end-to-taxpayer-funded-migrant-caravans

Rep. Gooden's legislation would prohibit contributions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). This prevents taxpayer funds from being used to facilitate mass migration into the United States.

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

Biden and Kamala's actions:
1) Allow practically everyone in.
2) Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling "refugees" from countries thousands of miles away to our border
3) When the democrats realize the American people don't like this, start turning people away from the border who have now arrived in these massive caravans.
4) Create a weak plan that normalizes large amounts of illegal immigration but is a whole lot better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years of their administration.
5) Take credit for turning away 4.4 million illegal immigrants when millions arrived at our doorstep egged on by democratic policy and rushing to get in before Trump makes it hard for them to do so. Many of those turned away are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in.

---

Yeah, these are pretty dramatically refuted by data, historical facts and the knowledge of a do-nothing Congress during this period.

Claim 1: "Allow practically everyone in."

• The Fact Check: The Biden administration never had an "open border" policy; they carried out more formal removals and border returns than any single presidential term since George W. Bush.
• Data to Use: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the administration oversaw nearly 4.4 million total repatriations (deportations and returns) through early 2024. During its tenure, the administration consistently applied Title 42 public health expulsions and Title 8 immigration enforcement.
• The Argument: An administration allowing "practically everyone in" would not execute millions of deportations and returns, which actually outpaced the total removals from Donald Trump's first term.

Claim 2: "Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling refugees..."

• The Fact Check: Migrant surges are driven by catastrophic global and regional factors ("push factors"), not unilateral U.S. policy ("pull factors").
  
• Data to Use: The historic spike in migration at the southern border was fueled by economic collapse, authoritarian violence, and climate crises in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, alongside a broader global migration crisis.
• The Argument: Shuttling and smuggling operations are run by violent transnational criminal cartels, not domestic political parties. Characterizing migration as a partisan-orchestrated phenomenon ignores the complex humanitarian crises forcing families to flee their home countries.

Claim 3 & 4: "Democrats started turning people away only when public opinion shifted, creating a 'weak plan' that normalizes illegal immigration."

• The Fact Check: The administration spent years attempting to pass strict, comprehensive border legislation, which was repeatedly blocked by congressional gridlock. When Congress failed to act, executive action was deployed.
• Data to Use: In early 2024, the administration backed a highly restrictive, bipartisan border security bill crafted by conservative and liberal senators. When that legislation failed to pass due to partisan pressure, President Biden issued a sweeping [June 2024 Presidential Proclamation](1.3.1, 1.3.6). This order effectively shut down asylum processing between ports of entry when daily border encounters averaged over 2,500.

• The Argument: The administration's policy did not "normalize" illegal immigration; it severely tightened enforcement. Immigration advocacy groups and the ACLU actually sued the administration, arguing that Biden's 2024 restrictions were too harsh and mimicked restrictive, Trump-era policies.

Claim 4 (Continued): "...better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years."

• The Fact Check: Enforcement was severe during the first three years of the administration; it was simply handling a higher volume of total crossers.
• Data to Use: In fiscal year 2023 alone, DHS executed over 142,000 interior removals and hundreds of thousands of border returns. The administration did not wait until year four to enforce the border; they used Title 42 expulsions up until its legal expiration in May 2023, immediately replacing it with stricter Title 8 penalties, including a five-year ban on reentry and criminal prosecution for repeat crossers.

Claim 5: "Taking credit for turning away 4.4 million when millions arrived... and many are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in."

• The Fact Check: While "recidivism" (the same person attempting to cross multiple times) does occur, the Biden administration transitioned away from policies that caused it and increased the legal penalties for repeat crossers.
• Data to Use: Under the pandemic-era Title 42 policy (used by both Trump and Biden), migrants were quickly expelled without formal immigration marks on their records, which naturally led to high recidivism rates. However, when the Biden administration transitioned fully to Title 8 enforcement in 2023, it imposed formal removals. A formal removal carries severe legal consequences, meaning repeat attempts result in automatic criminal prosecution and a minimum 5-year bar on legal entry.
• The Argument: The 4.4 million statistic represents a massive mobilization of operational enforcement resourcesincluding expanding repatriation flights to distant countries like India, China, and nations in Africa. Attributing the surge strictly to "democratic policy" ignores that migration waves have steadily risen across multiple presidential administrations over the last two decades.

We are always better when we VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

• That statistic does not prove the border was restrictive.
• The 4.4 million figure lumps together different categories: formal removals, returns at the border, and Title 42 expulsions. It is not "4.4 million illegal immigrants living in America whom Biden deported." MPI itself emphasizes that Biden relied heavily on border returns rather than interior removals.
• More importantly, the same Migration Policy Institute found that from May 2023 through March 2024, 67% of unauthorized migrants encountered at the southwest border were released into the United States to await immigration proceedings.
• MPI later estimated that by mid-2024 about 5.8 million migrants had been paroled or otherwise allowed into the country to pursue asylum or other immigration cases during Biden's presidency.

• This is a false either/or.
• Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba and Nicaragua undoubtedly experienced genuine political and economic crises. But MPI itself lists the change in U.S. presidential administrations and the perception of a new opportunity to enter the United States among the factors behind the migration surge.
• That matters because migrants respond to both:
• Push factors: violence, repression, poverty and instability.
• Pull factors: the perceived likelihood that reaching the United States will result in release and an opportunity to remain for years while an immigration case proceeds.
• Under Biden, that latter perception wasn't invented out of thin air. At various points, large percentages of apprehended migrants really were released pending court proceedings.
• And smugglers aren't independent of U.S. policy. Smuggling organizations actively advertise changes in American enforcement and asylum rules. A policy environment that increases the probability of release can increase demand for their services.

• This is probably the most misleading claim in the post.
• The famous bipartisan Lankford-Murphy-Sinema border deal didn't emerge until early 2024after three years of exceptionally high crossings.
• By that point, the border crisis was already politically damaging to Biden.
• It's true that Trump opposed the deal and that most Senate Republicans ultimately blocked it. Republican James Lankford had spent months negotiating it, and only a handful of Republicans supported advancing the final compromise.
• Republicans can absolutely be criticized for that.
• But that doesn't establish: "Biden spent years trying to implement the policies Republicans blocked." He didn't.
• The restrictive bipartisan package arrived in year four.
• So Republicans killing the 2024 bill does not erase the administration's choices during 2021, 2022 and 2023.

• He was enforcing immigration law all along. That's true.
• But that's not the same as saying his overall policy posture remained equally restrictive.
• The evidence actually shows Biden became substantially tougher as the crisis progressed.
• Look at June 2024.
• Biden issued an asylum restriction that effectively shut off asylum for most people crossing illegally once encounters reached an average of 2,500 per day. The ACLU called it Biden's most restrictive border policy and sued him over it.
• Then something revealing happened:
• Crossings fell dramatically.
• CBP reported that southwest Border Patrol encounters fell 29% just from May to June 2024, reaching their lowest monthly level in more than three years.
• MPI says illegal crossings between ports dropped by more than 70% between December 2023 and August 2024, following tougher U.S. measures and increased Mexican enforcement.

• Again, this confuses absolute enforcement numbers with enforcement effectiveness.
• Imagine 100 people arrive and you remove 50.
• Now imagine 1,000 arrive and you remove 300.
• The second government removed six times as many peoplebut it also allowed far more people to remain.
• That's essentially the problem with using Biden's raw removal totals as proof of a secure border.
• CBP recorded more than 3.2 million encounters nationwide in FY2023, the highest level recorded at the time, including nearly 2.5 million at the southwest border.
• So enormous removal numbers were occurring alongside enormous arrival numbers.
• A much more meaningful statistic is the percentage of arrivals actually removed versus released.
• And again, MPI found a 67% release rate for unauthorized migrants encountered at the southwest border during May 2023March 2024.
• That fact seriously undercuts the original post's presentation.

• Technically yesbut this omits critical context.
• Title 42 was a Trump administration policy created during COVID.
• Biden continued using it for a period, but his administration also sought to transition away from it before it ultimately ended with the termination of the COVID public-health emergency in May 2023.
• And Title 42 wasn't applied uniformly.
• MPI found, for example, that in early 2023 only 34% of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans encountered between ports were subject to Title 42, compared with 68% of Mexican and Central American migrants.

• It actually raises the opposite question.
• The June 2024 policy showed that the administration possessed meaningful executive authority to make illegal crossings substantially less attractive.
• After Biden imposed tougher asylum restrictions, crossings dropped sharply.
• The ACLU's opposition proves that the 2024 policy was restrictive. It doesn't prove the 202123 policies were equally restrictive.
• In fact, the ACLU explicitly described the June action as the administration's most restrictive border policy.
• That's important.
• You can't logically argue: "See, Biden was always extremely toughthe proof is that in June 2024 he adopted his toughest policy yet."
• The latter implicitly acknowledges a change.

• Republicans did kill a legitimate bipartisan border package. That should be acknowledged.
• But presidents don't receive a three-year exemption from responsibility because Congress rejected legislation in year four.

• The original post is partly right here: Title 42 caused unusually high recidivism because people expelled quickly could simply attempt another crossing.
• MPI specifically confirms that encounters count events rather than unique people and that recidivism rose sharply during Title 42.
• But the same caution has to be applied to the pro-Biden statistics.
• If someone argues: "Border encounters are inflated because the same person can cross repeatedly,"
then they can't turn around and treat every Title 42 expulsion contained in the 4.4 million repatriations figure as though it represents a different migrant permanently removed from the United States.

• Not exactly.
• After formal Title 8 removal, migrants can face a minimum five-year bar on admission and potential prosecution if they subsequently illegally reenter. CBP itself uses the word "potential."
• So "automatic criminal prosecution" overstates the policy.
• The penalties are considerably stronger than Title 42, but prosecution isn't automatic in every case.

• The long-term trend is relevant but doesn't explain the scale of the Biden-era increase.
• Southwest-border encounters were approximately:

• 458,000 in FY2020
• 1.7 million in FY2021
• 2.4 million in FY2022
• nearly 2.5 million in FY2023
• MPI notes that FY2021's 1.7 million encounters were more than triple FY2020 and already a record at the time.
• COVID makes a straight 2020 comparison imperfect, and Title 42 inflated encounter numbers through repeat crossings.
• But describing the Biden-period surge merely as a continuation of a smooth 20-year trend is misleading.
• There was a very large discontinuity.

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

Biden and Kamala's actions:
1) Allow practically everyone in.
2) Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling "refugees" from countries thousands of miles away to our border
3) When the democrats realize the American people don't like this, start turning people away from the border who have now arrived in these massive caravans.
4) Create a weak plan that normalizes large amounts of illegal immigration but is a whole lot better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years of their administration.
5) Take credit for turning away 4.4 million illegal immigrants when millions arrived at our doorstep egged on by democratic policy and rushing to get in before Trump makes it hard for them to do so. Many of those turned away are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in.

---

Yeah, these are pretty dramatically refuted by data, historical facts and the knowledge of a do-nothing Congress during this period.

Claim 1: "Allow practically everyone in."

• The Fact Check: The Biden administration never had an "open border" policy; they carried out more formal removals and border returns than any single presidential term since George W. Bush.
• Data to Use: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the administration oversaw nearly 4.4 million total repatriations (deportations and returns) through early 2024. During its tenure, the administration consistently applied Title 42 public health expulsions and Title 8 immigration enforcement.
• The Argument: An administration allowing "practically everyone in" would not execute millions of deportations and returns, which actually outpaced the total removals from Donald Trump's first term.

Claim 2: "Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling refugees..."

• The Fact Check: Migrant surges are driven by catastrophic global and regional factors ("push factors"), not unilateral U.S. policy ("pull factors").
  
• Data to Use: The historic spike in migration at the southern border was fueled by economic collapse, authoritarian violence, and climate crises in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, alongside a broader global migration crisis.
• The Argument: Shuttling and smuggling operations are run by violent transnational criminal cartels, not domestic political parties. Characterizing migration as a partisan-orchestrated phenomenon ignores the complex humanitarian crises forcing families to flee their home countries.

Claim 3 & 4: "Democrats started turning people away only when public opinion shifted, creating a 'weak plan' that normalizes illegal immigration."

• The Fact Check: The administration spent years attempting to pass strict, comprehensive border legislation, which was repeatedly blocked by congressional gridlock. When Congress failed to act, executive action was deployed.
• Data to Use: In early 2024, the administration backed a highly restrictive, bipartisan border security bill crafted by conservative and liberal senators. When that legislation failed to pass due to partisan pressure, President Biden issued a sweeping [June 2024 Presidential Proclamation](1.3.1, 1.3.6). This order effectively shut down asylum processing between ports of entry when daily border encounters averaged over 2,500.

• The Argument: The administration's policy did not "normalize" illegal immigration; it severely tightened enforcement. Immigration advocacy groups and the ACLU actually sued the administration, arguing that Biden's 2024 restrictions were too harsh and mimicked restrictive, Trump-era policies.

Claim 4 (Continued): "...better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years."

• The Fact Check: Enforcement was severe during the first three years of the administration; it was simply handling a higher volume of total crossers.
• Data to Use: In fiscal year 2023 alone, DHS executed over 142,000 interior removals and hundreds of thousands of border returns. The administration did not wait until year four to enforce the border; they used Title 42 expulsions up until its legal expiration in May 2023, immediately replacing it with stricter Title 8 penalties, including a five-year ban on reentry and criminal prosecution for repeat crossers.

Claim 5: "Taking credit for turning away 4.4 million when millions arrived... and many are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in."

• The Fact Check: While "recidivism" (the same person attempting to cross multiple times) does occur, the Biden administration transitioned away from policies that caused it and increased the legal penalties for repeat crossers.
• Data to Use: Under the pandemic-era Title 42 policy (used by both Trump and Biden), migrants were quickly expelled without formal immigration marks on their records, which naturally led to high recidivism rates. However, when the Biden administration transitioned fully to Title 8 enforcement in 2023, it imposed formal removals. A formal removal carries severe legal consequences, meaning repeat attempts result in automatic criminal prosecution and a minimum 5-year bar on legal entry.
• The Argument: The 4.4 million statistic represents a massive mobilization of operational enforcement resourcesincluding expanding repatriation flights to distant countries like India, China, and nations in Africa. Attributing the surge strictly to "democratic policy" ignores that migration waves have steadily risen across multiple presidential administrations over the last two decades.

We are always better when we VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

Your very first point is false or misleading.

1) I never said it was an open border policy so you are arguing with yourself.

2) The 4.4 million number is bs. Repatriation? It includes simply kicking people out at the border.

Also, Biden's government funded NGOs who funded these caravans and encouraged folks to enter the US.

Yes, Biden's pre-election 2024 policy was good, which is why liberal groups fought it.

---

All I read from MAGA types is that Biden had this let them in border policy, if you don't agree with that, thank you. You actually know some facts.


As for the 4.4 million number, isn't immigration enforcement about keeping people out of entering that should not be entering? It's a great fact for the Biden admin.

As for your #2, the facts are these: Did They "Fund the Caravans" Directly?
No. There is no evidence that the U.S. government or its funded NGOs organized or paid people to form caravans.
Caravans are typically self-organized by migrants for physical safety against cartels and kidnappers, or exploited by human smugglers who charge fees to guide them. While some local, non-funded advocacy groups (like Pueblo Sin Fronteras) have historically helped coordinate caravan logistics, the large international NGOs receiving federal U.S. dollars explicitly stated they only provided retroactive humanitarian relief to people already in transitthey did not sponsor the travel itself.

I see you accepted the rest of the counters I presented. Thanks for that and have a great rest of your week.

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

https://cis.org/Bensman/UN-Budgets-Millions-USBound-Migrants-2024

"The document makes clear in writing that the UN and these partners know their endeavor aids, abets, and makes possible the "onward movement" of immigrants who intend to illegally cross borders, especially to get into the United States."

"Some 57 international organizations would manage the handouts of $273 million, while 132 "national NGOs" and "civil service organizations" would handle $70 million in aid. Fifteen UN agencies would get the lion's share at $1.2 billion."

https://homeland.house.gov/2025/07/17/its-a-pipeline-experts-reveal-how-taxpayer-funded-ngos-facilitated-human-trafficking-profited-from-biden-harris-border-crisis/

"In the hearing, witnesses laid out in detail how NGOs received more than $6 billion from the Biden-Harris administration, including through grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and others. They also testified about how the Biden-Harris administration handed over unaccompanied alien children (UACs) to NGOs, primarily at the border, who then delivered them to poorly-vetted sponsors."

"repaid them by driving an estimated $6 billion to a conglomerate of 15 UN agencies and 230 NGOs, as recently calculated by the Center for Immigration Studies, to do this work for them."


https://gooden.house.gov/2021/12/gooden-calls-for-end-to-taxpayer-funded-migrant-caravans

Rep. Gooden's legislation would prohibit contributions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). This prevents taxpayer funds from being used to facilitate mass migration into the United States.

---

the fact that the large international NGOs receiving federal U.S. dollars explicitly stated they only provided retroactive humanitarian relief to people already in transit

---

TrumpBear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

Biden and Kamala's actions:
1) Allow practically everyone in.
2) Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling "refugees" from countries thousands of miles away to our border
3) When the democrats realize the American people don't like this, start turning people away from the border who have now arrived in these massive caravans.
4) Create a weak plan that normalizes large amounts of illegal immigration but is a whole lot better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years of their administration.
5) Take credit for turning away 4.4 million illegal immigrants when millions arrived at our doorstep egged on by democratic policy and rushing to get in before Trump makes it hard for them to do so. Many of those turned away are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in.

---

Yeah, these are pretty dramatically refuted by data, historical facts and the knowledge of a do-nothing Congress during this period.

Claim 1: "Allow practically everyone in."

• The Fact Check: The Biden administration never had an "open border" policy; they carried out more formal removals and border returns than any single presidential term since George W. Bush.
• Data to Use: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the administration oversaw nearly 4.4 million total repatriations (deportations and returns) through early 2024. During its tenure, the administration consistently applied Title 42 public health expulsions and Title 8 immigration enforcement.
• The Argument: An administration allowing "practically everyone in" would not execute millions of deportations and returns, which actually outpaced the total removals from Donald Trump's first term.

Claim 2: "Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling refugees..."

• The Fact Check: Migrant surges are driven by catastrophic global and regional factors ("push factors"), not unilateral U.S. policy ("pull factors").
  
• Data to Use: The historic spike in migration at the southern border was fueled by economic collapse, authoritarian violence, and climate crises in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, alongside a broader global migration crisis.
• The Argument: Shuttling and smuggling operations are run by violent transnational criminal cartels, not domestic political parties. Characterizing migration as a partisan-orchestrated phenomenon ignores the complex humanitarian crises forcing families to flee their home countries.

Claim 3 & 4: "Democrats started turning people away only when public opinion shifted, creating a 'weak plan' that normalizes illegal immigration."

• The Fact Check: The administration spent years attempting to pass strict, comprehensive border legislation, which was repeatedly blocked by congressional gridlock. When Congress failed to act, executive action was deployed.
• Data to Use: In early 2024, the administration backed a highly restrictive, bipartisan border security bill crafted by conservative and liberal senators. When that legislation failed to pass due to partisan pressure, President Biden issued a sweeping [June 2024 Presidential Proclamation](1.3.1, 1.3.6). This order effectively shut down asylum processing between ports of entry when daily border encounters averaged over 2,500.

• The Argument: The administration's policy did not "normalize" illegal immigration; it severely tightened enforcement. Immigration advocacy groups and the ACLU actually sued the administration, arguing that Biden's 2024 restrictions were too harsh and mimicked restrictive, Trump-era policies.

Claim 4 (Continued): "...better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years."

• The Fact Check: Enforcement was severe during the first three years of the administration; it was simply handling a higher volume of total crossers.
• Data to Use: In fiscal year 2023 alone, DHS executed over 142,000 interior removals and hundreds of thousands of border returns. The administration did not wait until year four to enforce the border; they used Title 42 expulsions up until its legal expiration in May 2023, immediately replacing it with stricter Title 8 penalties, including a five-year ban on reentry and criminal prosecution for repeat crossers.

Claim 5: "Taking credit for turning away 4.4 million when millions arrived... and many are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in."

• The Fact Check: While "recidivism" (the same person attempting to cross multiple times) does occur, the Biden administration transitioned away from policies that caused it and increased the legal penalties for repeat crossers.
• Data to Use: Under the pandemic-era Title 42 policy (used by both Trump and Biden), migrants were quickly expelled without formal immigration marks on their records, which naturally led to high recidivism rates. However, when the Biden administration transitioned fully to Title 8 enforcement in 2023, it imposed formal removals. A formal removal carries severe legal consequences, meaning repeat attempts result in automatic criminal prosecution and a minimum 5-year bar on legal entry.
• The Argument: The 4.4 million statistic represents a massive mobilization of operational enforcement resourcesincluding expanding repatriation flights to distant countries like India, China, and nations in Africa. Attributing the surge strictly to "democratic policy" ignores that migration waves have steadily risen across multiple presidential administrations over the last two decades.

We are always better when we VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

You keep saying your claims but your responses are clearly AI so I doubt much of this is coming from you but it's almost entirely wrong or misleading.

Claim 1: "Biden couldn't have allowed practically everyone in because he repatriated 4.4 million."

• That statistic does not prove the border was restrictive.
• The 4.4 million figure lumps together different categories: formal removals, returns at the border, and Title 42 expulsions. It is not "4.4 million illegal immigrants living in America whom Biden deported." MPI itself emphasizes that Biden relied heavily on border returns rather than interior removals.
• More importantly, the same Migration Policy Institute found that from May 2023 through March 2024, 67% of unauthorized migrants encountered at the southwest border were released into the United States to await immigration proceedings.
• MPI later estimated that by mid-2024 about 5.8 million migrants had been paroled or otherwise allowed into the country to pursue asylum or other immigration cases during Biden's presidency.

Yes, Biden removed or expelled millionsbut millions more were also allowed into the country. Citing only removals tells half the story.

Claim 2: "The migrant surge was caused by global push factors, not Biden's policies."

• This is a false either/or.
• Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba and Nicaragua undoubtedly experienced genuine political and economic crises. But MPI itself lists the change in U.S. presidential administrations and the perception of a new opportunity to enter the United States among the factors behind the migration surge.
• That matters because migrants respond to both:
• Push factors: violence, repression, poverty and instability.
• Pull factors: the perceived likelihood that reaching the United States will result in release and an opportunity to remain for years while an immigration case proceeds.
• Under Biden, that latter perception wasn't invented out of thin air. At various points, large percentages of apprehended migrants really were released pending court proceedings.
• And smugglers aren't independent of U.S. policy. Smuggling organizations actively advertise changes in American enforcement and asylum rules. A policy environment that increases the probability of release can increase demand for their services.

Claim 3: "Biden spent years trying to pass strict border legislation."

• This is probably the most misleading claim in the post.
• The famous bipartisan Lankford-Murphy-Sinema border deal didn't emerge until early 2024after three years of exceptionally high crossings.
• By that point, the border crisis was already politically damaging to Biden.
• It's true that Trump opposed the deal and that most Senate Republicans ultimately blocked it. Republican James Lankford had spent months negotiating it, and only a handful of Republicans supported advancing the final compromise.
• Republicans can absolutely be criticized for that.
• But that doesn't establish: "Biden spent years trying to implement the policies Republicans blocked." He didn't.
• The restrictive bipartisan package arrived in year four.
• So Republicans killing the 2024 bill does not erase the administration's choices during 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Claim 4: "Biden didn't wait until public opinion changedhe was enforcing the border all along."

• He was enforcing immigration law all along. That's true.
• But that's not the same as saying his overall policy posture remained equally restrictive.
• The evidence actually shows Biden became substantially tougher as the crisis progressed.
• Look at June 2024.
• Biden issued an asylum restriction that effectively shut off asylum for most people crossing illegally once encounters reached an average of 2,500 per day. The ACLU called it Biden's most restrictive border policy and sued him over it.
• Then something revealing happened:
• Crossings fell dramatically.
• CBP reported that southwest Border Patrol encounters fell 29% just from May to June 2024, reaching their lowest monthly level in more than three years.
• MPI says illegal crossings between ports dropped by more than 70% between December 2023 and August 2024, following tougher U.S. measures and increased Mexican enforcement.

Claim 5: "FY2023 removals prove enforcement was already severe."

• Again, this confuses absolute enforcement numbers with enforcement effectiveness.
• Imagine 100 people arrive and you remove 50.
• Now imagine 1,000 arrive and you remove 300.
• The second government removed six times as many peoplebut it also allowed far more people to remain.
• That's essentially the problem with using Biden's raw removal totals as proof of a secure border.
• CBP recorded more than 3.2 million encounters nationwide in FY2023, the highest level recorded at the time, including nearly 2.5 million at the southwest border.
• So enormous removal numbers were occurring alongside enormous arrival numbers.
• A much more meaningful statistic is the percentage of arrivals actually removed versus released.
• And again, MPI found a 67% release rate for unauthorized migrants encountered at the southwest border during May 2023March 2024.
• That fact seriously undercuts the original post's presentation.

Claim 6: "Biden consistently applied Title 42."

• Technically yesbut this omits critical context.
• Title 42 was a Trump administration policy created during COVID.
• Biden continued using it for a period, but his administration also sought to transition away from it before it ultimately ended with the termination of the COVID public-health emergency in May 2023.
• And Title 42 wasn't applied uniformly.
• MPI found, for example, that in early 2023 only 34% of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans encountered between ports were subject to Title 42, compared with 68% of Mexican and Central American migrants.

Claim 7: "The 2024 crackdown proves Biden never normalized illegal immigration."

• It actually raises the opposite question.
• The June 2024 policy showed that the administration possessed meaningful executive authority to make illegal crossings substantially less attractive.
• After Biden imposed tougher asylum restrictions, crossings dropped sharply.
• The ACLU's opposition proves that the 2024 policy was restrictive. It doesn't prove the 202123 policies were equally restrictive.
• In fact, the ACLU explicitly described the June action as the administration's most restrictive border policy.
• That's important.
• You can't logically argue: "See, Biden was always extremely toughthe proof is that in June 2024 he adopted his toughest policy yet."
• The latter implicitly acknowledges a change.

Claim 8: "Republicans killed the border bill, therefore Biden isn't responsible."

• Republicans did kill a legitimate bipartisan border package. That should be acknowledged.
• But presidents don't receive a three-year exemption from responsibility because Congress rejected legislation in year four.

Claim 9: "Repeat crossings explain the numbers, but Title 8 solved that."

• The original post is partly right here: Title 42 caused unusually high recidivism because people expelled quickly could simply attempt another crossing.
• MPI specifically confirms that encounters count events rather than unique people and that recidivism rose sharply during Title 42.
• But the same caution has to be applied to the pro-Biden statistics.
• If someone argues: "Border encounters are inflated because the same person can cross repeatedly,"
then they can't turn around and treat every Title 42 expulsion contained in the 4.4 million repatriations figure as though it represents a different migrant permanently removed from the United States.

Claim 10: "Title 8 means repeat crossers automatically face prosecution."

• Not exactly.
• After formal Title 8 removal, migrants can face a minimum five-year bar on admission and potential prosecution if they subsequently illegally reenter. CBP itself uses the word "potential."
• So "automatic criminal prosecution" overstates the policy.
• The penalties are considerably stronger than Title 42, but prosecution isn't automatic in every case.

Claim 11: "Migration waves had already been rising for decades, so blaming Democratic policy is wrong."

• The long-term trend is relevant but doesn't explain the scale of the Biden-era increase.
• Southwest-border encounters were approximately:

• 458,000 in FY2020
• 1.7 million in FY2021
• 2.4 million in FY2022
• nearly 2.5 million in FY2023
• MPI notes that FY2021's 1.7 million encounters were more than triple FY2020 and already a record at the time.
• COVID makes a straight 2020 comparison imperfect, and Title 42 inflated encounter numbers through repeat crossings.
• But describing the Biden-period surge merely as a continuation of a smooth 20-year trend is misleading.
• There was a very large discontinuity.

---

• He was enforcing immigration law all along. That's true.

• Republicans did kill a legitimate bipartisan border package. That should be acknowledged.

SBGold said:

---

TrumpBear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Just because you don't like the serious answer and the numbers doesn't make it misleading.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE GAVIN

---

Biden and Kamala's actions:
1) Allow practically everyone in.
2) Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling "refugees" from countries thousands of miles away to our border
3) When the democrats realize the American people don't like this, start turning people away from the border who have now arrived in these massive caravans.
4) Create a weak plan that normalizes large amounts of illegal immigration but is a whole lot better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years of their administration.
5) Take credit for turning away 4.4 million illegal immigrants when millions arrived at our doorstep egged on by democratic policy and rushing to get in before Trump makes it hard for them to do so. Many of those turned away are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in.

---

Yeah, these are pretty dramatically refuted by data, historical facts and the knowledge of a do-nothing Congress during this period.

Claim 1: "Allow practically everyone in."

• The Fact Check: The Biden administration never had an "open border" policy; they carried out more formal removals and border returns than any single presidential term since George W. Bush.
• Data to Use: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the administration oversaw nearly 4.4 million total repatriations (deportations and returns) through early 2024. During its tenure, the administration consistently applied Title 42 public health expulsions and Title 8 immigration enforcement.
• The Argument: An administration allowing "practically everyone in" would not execute millions of deportations and returns, which actually outpaced the total removals from Donald Trump's first term.

Claim 2: "Massive caravans form, continuously shuttling refugees..."

• The Fact Check: Migrant surges are driven by catastrophic global and regional factors ("push factors"), not unilateral U.S. policy ("pull factors").
  
• Data to Use: The historic spike in migration at the southern border was fueled by economic collapse, authoritarian violence, and climate crises in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua, alongside a broader global migration crisis.
• The Argument: Shuttling and smuggling operations are run by violent transnational criminal cartels, not domestic political parties. Characterizing migration as a partisan-orchestrated phenomenon ignores the complex humanitarian crises forcing families to flee their home countries.

Claim 3 & 4: "Democrats started turning people away only when public opinion shifted, creating a 'weak plan' that normalizes illegal immigration."

• The Fact Check: The administration spent years attempting to pass strict, comprehensive border legislation, which was repeatedly blocked by congressional gridlock. When Congress failed to act, executive action was deployed.
• Data to Use: In early 2024, the administration backed a highly restrictive, bipartisan border security bill crafted by conservative and liberal senators. When that legislation failed to pass due to partisan pressure, President Biden issued a sweeping [June 2024 Presidential Proclamation](1.3.1, 1.3.6). This order effectively shut down asylum processing between ports of entry when daily border encounters averaged over 2,500.

• The Argument: The administration's policy did not "normalize" illegal immigration; it severely tightened enforcement. Immigration advocacy groups and the ACLU actually sued the administration, arguing that Biden's 2024 restrictions were too harsh and mimicked restrictive, Trump-era policies.

Claim 4 (Continued): "...better than Biden and Kamala were doing for the first 3 years."

• The Fact Check: Enforcement was severe during the first three years of the administration; it was simply handling a higher volume of total crossers.
• Data to Use: In fiscal year 2023 alone, DHS executed over 142,000 interior removals and hundreds of thousands of border returns. The administration did not wait until year four to enforce the border; they used Title 42 expulsions up until its legal expiration in May 2023, immediately replacing it with stricter Title 8 penalties, including a five-year ban on reentry and criminal prosecution for repeat crossers.

Claim 5: "Taking credit for turning away 4.4 million when millions arrived... and many are simply the same people continuously trying to get back in."

• The Fact Check: While "recidivism" (the same person attempting to cross multiple times) does occur, the Biden administration transitioned away from policies that caused it and increased the legal penalties for repeat crossers.
• Data to Use: Under the pandemic-era Title 42 policy (used by both Trump and Biden), migrants were quickly expelled without formal immigration marks on their records, which naturally led to high recidivism rates. However, when the Biden administration transitioned fully to Title 8 enforcement in 2023, it imposed formal removals. A formal removal carries severe legal consequences, meaning repeat attempts result in automatic criminal prosecution and a minimum 5-year bar on legal entry.
• The Argument: The 4.4 million statistic represents a massive mobilization of operational enforcement resourcesincluding expanding repatriation flights to distant countries like India, China, and nations in Africa. Attributing the surge strictly to "democratic policy" ignores that migration waves have steadily risen across multiple presidential administrations over the last two decades.

We are always better when we VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

You keep saying your claims but your responses are clearly AI so I doubt much of this is coming from you but it's almost entirely wrong or misleading.

Claim 1: "Biden couldn't have allowed practically everyone in because he repatriated 4.4 million."

• That statistic does not prove the border was restrictive.
• The 4.4 million figure lumps together different categories: formal removals, returns at the border, and Title 42 expulsions. It is not "4.4 million illegal immigrants living in America whom Biden deported." MPI itself emphasizes that Biden relied heavily on border returns rather than interior removals.
• More importantly, the same Migration Policy Institute found that from May 2023 through March 2024, 67% of unauthorized migrants encountered at the southwest border were released into the United States to await immigration proceedings.
• MPI later estimated that by mid-2024 about 5.8 million migrants had been paroled or otherwise allowed into the country to pursue asylum or other immigration cases during Biden's presidency.

Yes, Biden removed or expelled millionsbut millions more were also allowed into the country. Citing only removals tells half the story.

Claim 2: "The migrant surge was caused by global push factors, not Biden's policies."

• This is a false either/or.
• Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba and Nicaragua undoubtedly experienced genuine political and economic crises. But MPI itself lists the change in U.S. presidential administrations and the perception of a new opportunity to enter the United States among the factors behind the migration surge.
• That matters because migrants respond to both:
• Push factors: violence, repression, poverty and instability.
• Pull factors: the perceived likelihood that reaching the United States will result in release and an opportunity to remain for years while an immigration case proceeds.
• Under Biden, that latter perception wasn't invented out of thin air. At various points, large percentages of apprehended migrants really were released pending court proceedings.
• And smugglers aren't independent of U.S. policy. Smuggling organizations actively advertise changes in American enforcement and asylum rules. A policy environment that increases the probability of release can increase demand for their services.

Claim 3: "Biden spent years trying to pass strict border legislation."

• This is probably the most misleading claim in the post.
• The famous bipartisan Lankford-Murphy-Sinema border deal didn't emerge until early 2024after three years of exceptionally high crossings.
• By that point, the border crisis was already politically damaging to Biden.
• It's true that Trump opposed the deal and that most Senate Republicans ultimately blocked it. Republican James Lankford had spent months negotiating it, and only a handful of Republicans supported advancing the final compromise.
• Republicans can absolutely be criticized for that.
• But that doesn't establish: "Biden spent years trying to implement the policies Republicans blocked." He didn't.
• The restrictive bipartisan package arrived in year four.
• So Republicans killing the 2024 bill does not erase the administration's choices during 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Claim 4: "Biden didn't wait until public opinion changedhe was enforcing the border all along."

• He was enforcing immigration law all along. That's true.
• But that's not the same as saying his overall policy posture remained equally restrictive.
• The evidence actually shows Biden became substantially tougher as the crisis progressed.
• Look at June 2024.
• Biden issued an asylum restriction that effectively shut off asylum for most people crossing illegally once encounters reached an average of 2,500 per day. The ACLU called it Biden's most restrictive border policy and sued him over it.
• Then something revealing happened:
• Crossings fell dramatically.
• CBP reported that southwest Border Patrol encounters fell 29% just from May to June 2024, reaching their lowest monthly level in more than three years.
• MPI says illegal crossings between ports dropped by more than 70% between December 2023 and August 2024, following tougher U.S. measures and increased Mexican enforcement.

Claim 5: "FY2023 removals prove enforcement was already severe."

• Again, this confuses absolute enforcement numbers with enforcement effectiveness.
• Imagine 100 people arrive and you remove 50.
• Now imagine 1,000 arrive and you remove 300.
• The second government removed six times as many peoplebut it also allowed far more people to remain.
• That's essentially the problem with using Biden's raw removal totals as proof of a secure border.
• CBP recorded more than 3.2 million encounters nationwide in FY2023, the highest level recorded at the time, including nearly 2.5 million at the southwest border.
• So enormous removal numbers were occurring alongside enormous arrival numbers.
• A much more meaningful statistic is the percentage of arrivals actually removed versus released.
• And again, MPI found a 67% release rate for unauthorized migrants encountered at the southwest border during May 2023March 2024.
• That fact seriously undercuts the original post's presentation.

Claim 6: "Biden consistently applied Title 42."

• Technically yesbut this omits critical context.
• Title 42 was a Trump administration policy created during COVID.
• Biden continued using it for a period, but his administration also sought to transition away from it before it ultimately ended with the termination of the COVID public-health emergency in May 2023.
• And Title 42 wasn't applied uniformly.
• MPI found, for example, that in early 2023 only 34% of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans encountered between ports were subject to Title 42, compared with 68% of Mexican and Central American migrants.

Claim 7: "The 2024 crackdown proves Biden never normalized illegal immigration."

• It actually raises the opposite question.
• The June 2024 policy showed that the administration possessed meaningful executive authority to make illegal crossings substantially less attractive.
• After Biden imposed tougher asylum restrictions, crossings dropped sharply.
• The ACLU's opposition proves that the 2024 policy was restrictive. It doesn't prove the 202123 policies were equally restrictive.
• In fact, the ACLU explicitly described the June action as the administration's most restrictive border policy.
• That's important.
• You can't logically argue: "See, Biden was always extremely toughthe proof is that in June 2024 he adopted his toughest policy yet."
• The latter implicitly acknowledges a change.

Claim 8: "Republicans killed the border bill, therefore Biden isn't responsible."

• Republicans did kill a legitimate bipartisan border package. That should be acknowledged.
• But presidents don't receive a three-year exemption from responsibility because Congress rejected legislation in year four.

Claim 9: "Repeat crossings explain the numbers, but Title 8 solved that."

• The original post is partly right here: Title 42 caused unusually high recidivism because people expelled quickly could simply attempt another crossing.
• MPI specifically confirms that encounters count events rather than unique people and that recidivism rose sharply during Title 42.
• But the same caution has to be applied to the pro-Biden statistics.
• If someone argues: "Border encounters are inflated because the same person can cross repeatedly,"
then they can't turn around and treat every Title 42 expulsion contained in the 4.4 million repatriations figure as though it represents a different migrant permanently removed from the United States.

Claim 10: "Title 8 means repeat crossers automatically face prosecution."

• Not exactly.
• After formal Title 8 removal, migrants can face a minimum five-year bar on admission and potential prosecution if they subsequently illegally reenter. CBP itself uses the word "potential."
• So "automatic criminal prosecution" overstates the policy.
• The penalties are considerably stronger than Title 42, but prosecution isn't automatic in every case.

Claim 11: "Migration waves had already been rising for decades, so blaming Democratic policy is wrong."

• The long-term trend is relevant but doesn't explain the scale of the Biden-era increase.
• Southwest-border encounters were approximately:

• 458,000 in FY2020
• 1.7 million in FY2021
• 2.4 million in FY2022
• nearly 2.5 million in FY2023
• MPI notes that FY2021's 1.7 million encounters were more than triple FY2020 and already a record at the time.
• COVID makes a straight 2020 comparison imperfect, and Title 42 inflated encounter numbers through repeat crossings.
• But describing the Biden-period surge merely as a continuation of a smooth 20-year trend is misleading.
• There was a very large discontinuity.

---

Yeah, I think what you noted in Claims 4 and 8 summarize what I said pretty well. 2 points from those to further summarize:

• He was enforcing immigration law all along. That's true.

:"Republicans killed the border bill, therefore Biden isn't responsible."

• Republicans did kill a legitimate bipartisan border package. That should be acknowledged.

Good stuff TB.

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

SBGold said:

---

I will agree to disagree, and that's ok because this is America.

G'day sir

VOTE BLUE and VOTE Gavin

---

TrumpBear said:

---

Biden went three years without trying to get border legislation and largely because he knew he couldn't defend it any longer and also because he knew there was an election coming up.

---

TrumpBear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

I will agree to disagree, and that's ok because this is America.

G'day sir

VOTE BLUE and VOTE Gavin

---

Agreeing to disagree doesn't work when you're wrong. This isn't an opinion issue.

---

SBGold said:

---

TrumpBear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

I will agree to disagree, and that's ok because this is America.

G'day sir

VOTE BLUE and VOTE Gavin

---

Agreeing to disagree doesn't work when you're wrong. This isn't an opinion issue.

---

We both think the other is wrong on this issue, best to leave it at that. Incessant back and forths are not needed, my argument was clearly laid out.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE Gavin

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

TrumpBear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

I will agree to disagree, and that's ok because this is America.

G'day sir

VOTE BLUE and VOTE Gavin

---

Agreeing to disagree doesn't work when you're wrong. This isn't an opinion issue.

---

We both think the other is wrong on this issue, best to leave it at that. Incessant back and forths are not needed, my argument was clearly laid out.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE Gavin

---

Your argument was clearly proven wrong by multiple people. It's easy to back out of a discussion when you know you're wrong about something.

---

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

TrumpBear said:

---

SBGold said:

---

I will agree to disagree, and that's ok because this is America.

G'day sir

VOTE BLUE and VOTE Gavin

---

Agreeing to disagree doesn't work when you're wrong. This isn't an opinion issue.

---

We both think the other is wrong on this issue, best to leave it at that. Incessant back and forths are not needed, my argument was clearly laid out.

VOTE BLUE and VOTE Gavin

---

Your argument was clearly proven wrong by multiple people. It's easy to back out of a discussion when you know you're wrong about something.

---

It's fine, I'm deathly afraid of incessant back and forths and creating a ruckus and getting suspended and banned, so I will let it be.

Good night!

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

SBGold said:

---

It's fine, I'm deathly afraid of incessant back and forths and creating a ruckus and getting suspended and banned, so I will let it be.

Good night!

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

DiabloWags said:

---

SBGold said:

---

It's fine, I'm deathly afraid of incessant back and forths and creating a ruckus and getting suspended and banned, so I will let it be.

Good night!

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

Your discipline and self-awareness are exemplary.
It's not worth taking the bait.

The incessant back and forth is petty and pedantic.
Its terribly predictable and not worth your time.

It has really killed off any valuable good faith discussion.
Not very encouraging for those that actually care.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

SBGold said:

---

It's fine, I'm deathly afraid of incessant back and forths and creating a ruckus and getting suspended and banned, so I will let it be.

Good night!

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

Your discipline and self-awareness are exemplary.
It's not worth taking the bait.

---

GrinandBearit said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

SBGold said:

---

It's fine, I'm deathly afraid of incessant back and forths and creating a ruckus and getting suspended and banned, so I will let it be.

Good night!

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN

---

Your discipline and self-awareness are exemplary.
It's not worth taking the bait.

---

Get a room

---