This is potentially true - very true.

I am a huge critic of American power, but I have increasingly found I hate all manner of power, since power is too often wielded to benefit just the elites.

Only $19 million of the $59 million that Musk highlighted in his tweet will go toward housing migrants in hotels, luxury or otherwise, officials said.

“We have already spent over $7 billion on this crisis alone, and the previous administration committed only $237 million in funding to help house the migrants in our care and for future services,” the City Hall statement reads.

“We have continued to receive previously allocated reimbursements through the past week. We will discuss this matter directly with federal officials.”

I am not sure how much this is a refutation of what Musk stated, nor how much of what was stated by them is true.

It is also the case that a lot of underbrush was not routinely removed… This is somewhat understandable when we are talking about forest fires in more remote parts of California.

The big issue is that underbrush in various parts near Los Angeles suburbs and throughout the area had not been dealt with.

The Getty Mansion and museum grounds were fully within the line of the fire that was coming, but they privately maintained their own grounds and insured that the underbrush that works as kindling for these fires was handled, and even have their own means of fighting fires that would start there… And they were completely fine even though many places all around them burnt down.

Because the UK is famous for arresting transgender people, right…?

I honestly think so, yes, as the older contingent that still tunes in to a lot of TV is often quite conservative.

The oft-repeated false idea that “the free market” will automatically find the most efficient solutions for everything has been proven wrong again and again, and here is yet another example.

To be completely fair to Reaganites, I think they are not concerned with homelessness being fixed.

This kind of reminds me of when anti-deportation activists took (staged?) pictures of wives/children greeting their fathers across the border fence, and someone had pointed out that the policy never actually broke up families…

What broke up families is people deciding for themselves that living in the USA was worth more than living with their father.

I would also point out: they have every right to return when they are 18, which is a hell of a massive right that is completely unearned - most nations do not have any form of birth right citizenship, and I think they are all generally ones in which nobody is particularly eager to obtain their rights of citizenship.

Conservatives talked a lot about the decriminalization of certain types of crime in California - it was a big theme in like 2022-2023 and still comes up. I think we also do tend to have these conversations whenever there is an event like what happened with George Floyd.

But I think it might be less talked about overall because many conservatives do live in places like Utah, Wyoming, etc., where crime isn’t a big issue, and it doesn’t seem like a national issue. When they imagine crime coming to them or getting worse, they think of it in terms of criminals making up a greater proportion of the population and moving into new places, which goes pretty well with a fear of an unsecure border.

The conservative position is quite simple: nearly every murder that is done by an illegal is potentially preventable if the borders are properly secured and we are actively deporting illegals when the opportunity presents itself. There would be very few exceptions to this - the very occasional overstayed visa murder, for instance.

Of course we have to put up with the insane levels of crime in the US from local citizens, but illegal immigrant crime is also substantial, and thus it is completely valid to go after it… It’s really a two birds, one stone situation.