The migrant families Texas Gov. Greg Abbott lured on to busses and sent to Vice President Kamala Harris's neighborhood wait for help. Kevin Dietsch | Getty



"European Union puts Hungary on notice: Following an EU parliament vote that declared Hungary no longer a democracy… "

FOX has Embraced
this FAR 'right' enclave
and now that Democracy
has Died there, they're prollly
gonna Quadruple Down on declaring
their Fealty cum Victimhood to those Nazis

Elitist "Tucks" Carlson
is also a Victim but
he'll prolly get a-
long just Fine if
Hungary gets
the Boot.

expect Crocodile
Tears and perhaps
Flooding in Alaska


Maria Cantwell debated Susan Hutchison, Patty should extend the same courtesy to Tiffany.

Not that multiple wrongs make a right, but it was former Mayor David Denkins of NYC who started the practice of unloading folks onto other states.


Is there really no way to defeat an obviously guilty defendant who went judge shopping until he found a corrupt one willing to gleefully immolate herself and betray America for the glory of her cult ruler?

Asking for a country.

And just when you thought Republinazis couldn't be any more cruel, depraved, and insane, they openly demonstrate that kidnapping, human trafficking, terrorism, theft and embezzlement are all A-OK as long as fascist rich white men do it. In fact, the KKKountry will enable, facilitate, and reward these crimes. The American legal system sure is one sick, grotesque charade.


Re 2: Not Denkis, Bloomberg.


DHS should be abolished. Waste of taxpayer money. We couldn't even protect the homeland from a gaggle of hillbillies.


@3 -- be a damn Tragedy
if Someone were to Tag our
formerly-Supreme Ct with an
UNnext to the EQUAL* otherwise
what it says carved in Stone in letters
6' High is Nothing but a Another Big Lie.

*as in

a little Truth in Advertising
shall we USSC?

whom am I kidding?
those Whacko Zeal-
ots've already Deci-
ded on who's The
President in 2024

a Guess?

some prefer Fascists.
some prefer Nazis.
I prefer Sanity.

vote Blue.


WTF is a "secure" southern border, anyway? Has the Mexican border ever been "secure"?


How long until Marquise Tolliver kills somebody else.

Good lord Dan Satterberg can’t be replaced by Jim Farrell fast enough.
How the hell did he lose this case?


@7, My son is going to grad school (PhD in Physics and Astronomy) in New Mexico, in a rural town. He has gotten to know the "townies" as the "techies" of the University call them, without endearment.

For the "townies", a secure border means, not having people in their states that are undocumented, and so ubiquitous, they can easily identify them, and put them on an airplane to the Vineyard, or buses to Chicago, D.C., NYC, etc.?

If those states can find the undocumented that easily and send them to D.C., why can't the Feds, influenced by blue voters from the nation's northern cities, find them to bus or fly them back to their countries of origin that they came from, to enter the U.S. illegally?

If those states can have their social services, schools, and communities flooded with that many desperately poor economic migrants and refugees, why can't those blue northern cities share the burden? Why isn't their governor following AZ, TX, and FL's example?

"Townies" want a border like the E.U. is putting in, with a wall, high-tech cameras that peer deep into the country unlawful entry is coming from, identify people gathering to breach the border, high-tech sensors that show attempts to breach, a high-tech command and control center, and guards in reserves to be surged to points of attempted entry, when migrants might overwhelm walls, gates, and normal watch standing guards.

The U.S. won't lift immigration limits, expand guest worker visa's etc., provide immigration leading to citizenship, or some mix of that, but we will "nod and wink" and look the other way while we exploit undocumented immigrant labor to staff the cheap eat restaurants that The Stranger readers love so much, and nanny our tech workers children. We won't pay enough for a meal out, so that a restaurant can attract a U.S. citizen to do the work. What my son and I want is for this country to get serious about defining who we want/need to migrate to this country, make it legal for them to be here to do that work, and to end the hypocrisy.


@8, The E.U. knows how to build one. That's what the "townies" want. See @10 for definition.


Most, if not all, sovereign nations have vested interests in preventing unauthorized access into their countries. Simply because the adjective "secure" is not realized to its ideal state, is a tangential gimmick and can be disregard.

It is illogical to negate the effort just because the ideal wasn't achieved. For example, we don't ask "WTF is fair judicial system, anyway?" or say "Or course, there is no such thing as a "fair" judicial system which is the whole point."


@ 7,

If Jesus Christ himself appeared at the southern border, the Republinazi mob would enthusiastically lynch him. It’s mass psychosis.

It’s quite a trick for them to ignore literally everything the Bibbel says about caring for immigrants, the poor, and the sick while promoting a toxic ideology of greed, hatred, and sadism while worshiping ex-Prezinazi AntiChrist.


@Original Andrew - That is the most apt commentary I've seen in awhile. Very sad though. I think hubby and I might have to shop for a new country to retire to just in case.

@Brent Gumbo - Agree 1000%!


The ‘gang of eight’ supported immigration reform in 2013, with a bipartisan 2 to 1 majority in the Senate. I believe Senators Rubio and Graham voted for it.
Since Boehner didn’t want to take on his own GOP representatives in the House, it never passed.
The solution has always been there.


@10 I assume you take such passionate issue with all the other nonviolent misdemeanor offenses people commit as well?


@10: so, you want all illegal crossings stopped. you (still) want Trump's wall.

illegal crossings have never been stopped previously. it's never been "secure" by that measure. you and your fellow xenophobes want an impossible ideal.

or maybe you just want a cudgel to brandish at election time.


there're 6- or 7,000,000
as-yet-Unfilled Jobs
in the USofA

employers can't find employees
or not at rates commensurate
or far too Risky or whatever
so here's some LABOR
peeps! put 'em to
fucking Work

they WANT to Work
so get 'em some
Childcare and
let them do
what they
wanna Do:

Evidently we
could Use them.


"What my son and I want is for this country to get serious about defining who we want/need to migrate to this country, make it legal for them to be here to do that work, and to end the hypocrisy." --@Faxnow

I can't argue with that.


@16 Yes and before that, we had George W. Bush's attempt at immigration reform, in which he gave the xenophobic "no amnesty" right virtually everything they demanded just to get something passed that would bring the millions of undocumented already here out of the shadows and into some kind of regulatory system. The resulting bill was extremely narrow in scope, punitive and byzantine in its requirements (remember the fiendish "touchback"?), and consequently VERY hard to support from the left. But it wasn't the Democrats who killed it.


@15, How is most illegal immigration accomplished? According the data, it's accomplished by people who are legally allowed to enter or remain, who then overstay their temporary right to be be here.

Of course it begs the question of why the "townies" get the unfunded costs of that national policy and the advocates of that national policy won't equitably share it.

You will get no argument from me that packing them up and putting them on buses by coercion or deception, is wrong full stop, no matter what point it might make.

@18, All illegal crossings can never be stopped; however, the argument that because all illegal crossing can't be stopped, we can't make any effort to reduce them to a trickle, or lessen the torrent, is fallacious. Making the perfect the enemy of the good.

The views I presented are those of the "townies", who hold different views than my own. Your @7, implied you wanted to understand their argument. I did my best to give you that understanding.


Will, hope you have a great trip! I have (fond?) memories of red eye flights to FL though Hartsfield.
Get some pool time or beach time in. The rain will be here soon enough.


I think a review of what is - and isn't - a 'refugee' in the eyes of the Law is in order. According to the US State Department:

"Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a refugee is an alien who, generally, has experienced past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."

Leaving your country and coming to the USA bc you are seeking better economic opportunities or trying to get away from crime or inept/corrupt leadership doesn't make you a refugee. Simply sneaking across the border then saying 'Estoy aquí, dame mis cosas gratis ahora' doesn't cut it; pretty much every legal immigrant is coming here because the country they're coming from sucks by comparison. Get in line with the rest of the people who wait up to 10 years for a Permanent Residence Visa, pay their fees and wait their turn.

(BTW, the USA admits nearly a million LEGAL immigrants and bona fide refugees a year. We have one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world, but we can't let things become a 'free-for-all', which is what the Dems seem to be trying to achieve)

What the Governors of Florida, Texas, and Arizona are doing is simply a Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come. The Administration does nothing to support these states that are told they have to absorb the hordes of illegals without any Federal Support. The border states are simply 'sharing the wealth', and giving the virtue-signaling SJW a chance to walk their talk.

Shipping refugees to Martha's Vineyard is just a crude way of forcing an honest convo on the issue. When one side pig-headedly refuses to listen, extreme measures must be taken.


So if someone shoots at me, my friends and I have the right to spray as many bullets as possible in their general direction on a crowded downtown street in “self defense,” no matter how many bystanders are killed or maimed in the process?

America, ladies and gentlemen! What a country!


@9, @26: The prosecution’s mistake was in seeking first-degree murder and assault charges, which means they had to prove intent on Tolliver’s part. Second-degree charges do not require proof of intent, which would have been the realistic course to take. This was prosecutorial overreach, and the jury seems to have rewarded it with acquittals.

(After the murder of George Floyd, Minnesota’s AG, Keith Ellison, did NOT seek a first-degree murder charge against Floyd’s killer. The charges were second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter. The jury found guilt on all three.)


@26, Washington Law, and the laws of most other states is substantively as follows:

"Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, without criminal negligence, or without any unlawful intent."

In the state's that don't have language substantially similar to Washington's on the books its covered by common law. The idea in common law is that an act that transfers to you the right to use deadly force against the attacker, also applies to the bystander. Otherwise, you would be required to trade your life for the bystanders. The law doesn't require you to take a bullet from the attacker, to save the bystander who is next to, or behind, the attacker you are shooting at.

In this case, a strong argument can be made that shooting over your shoulder, without attempting to aim at your assailant is Criminally Negligent. The State didn't make that case, because their case hinged on the defendants being the "primary aggressors" with no legal right to use deadly force. Prove that, and you don't have to prove Criminal Negligence. Try to prove Criminal Negligence, and you are admitting the defendant had the legal right to use deadly force to begin with.

If the Prosecutor is prepared to admit they got who the initial aggressor was wrong, as the jury found they did, they could charge the guy they were shooting over their shoulders at, with the single count of Murder and the six counts of Assault. But for him threatening the self-defense shooters, they would have never had legal cause to fire the shots that struck seven people. It would be a tough case, since the defense will holler they already got it wrong once, so its likely they are wrong again.

I am shocked that The Stranger isn't cheering that the gap between poor, POC defendants, and white defendants, successfully asserting justifiable homicide claims, is being closed by this case. Finally, equality of outcome. Finally, a measure of social justice. Color-blind, and income-blind justice, for once.

BTW, unique to Washington State, is that the State of Washington will have to pay all the defense costs of the acquitted man. Since he was defended by public defenders, it means the County invoicing the State of Washington. Had the defendant paid his own costs, The State would have to reimburse him.

No matter how you cut it, taxpayers paid for the investigation, the prosecution, the defense, and will pay incarceration costs, if any, from this event. Taxpayers got shot. There were no winners.


@28, There are huge disparities between the states on where undocumented immigrants are, even adjusting for population. They are disproportionately in the states of entry, and states like California that need cheap farm labor. The exception is NYC, which is a large place of entry for the undocumented, and refugees, as well as a place with a huge underground economy fueled by exploited immigrant labor.

All that said, it's no justification to use deceit or coercion to make those kinds of points. Don't take your political cheap shot, at the expense of the vulnerable and exploited. FO DeSantis, Abbot, et. al.

Also you like undocumented immigration when it supports keeping prices down at the places that The Stranger promotes for eating out. The horror of having to pay what it would cost for your casual dining, if restaurants actually paid what it would cost to get your cook and server to take the job, if there wasn't an undocumented worker to exploit. So of course you don't want E.U. style, state of the art barriers and technology, border control, to stem the torrent. The torrent means you can afford to eat out, with lots of choices and variety.

These workers submit to our exploitation because where they economically migrated from is even worse. What are we doing with our foreign policy to fix that? Oh, never mind.


@28, I get my news primarily from NPR and the Associated Press.

I refuse to watch Fox, read Breitbart, et. al. It's fake news.


@26- no shit. And the defendant here was already a convicted felon who had lost his gun rights, which the jury was not allowed to hear. He should be doing 20 just for carrying the gun, whether or not he fired it.


@30- “lawful act by lawful means” should have been the end of the self-defense claim. This asshole was breaking the law by even having a gun, much less using it.


@26, 29, 30, et al


More proof that Dan Satterberg is absolutely incompetent at the job.

The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office needs new leadership and new attorneys.

Vote Jim Farrell!


@30: “Try to prove Criminal Negligence, and you are admitting the defendant had the legal right to use deadly force to begin with.”

I’ve been a juror in King County, in a case where a defendant charged with second-degree murder claimed self-defense. The right to use deadly force in self-defense is not unlimited; the force used must be reasonable, as defined by law. Given the number of non-assailants struck by Tolliver’s bullets, proving that Tolliver exceeded the bounds of reasonable self-defense would seem possible. Too bad the prosecution never even tried. They needlessly set a very high bar for themselves to meet, and they failed.

@33, @34: Tolliver wasn’t being tried on a weapons charge, so his lacking a legal right to own a weapon was not material to his case.

Again, the prosecution screwed this up, big-time.


"....but I say that if you don't GTFO after hearing it hoot at you repeatedly, then it's justified in standing its ground."
Here we go again.....
So, Will, I guess you won't mind if you are walking down the street and someone takes a few shots at you because they don't like you walking front of their house.
Seattle posted a very appropriate notice. But you, expecting people to have some clue that they are about to be attacked because of a few owl hoots, is more stupidity.....just like expecting police officers to know that, when a crazy person runs at them thrusting with a knife, it's just all in good fun.

"....DeSantis, governor of Florida, somehow orchestrated a scheme to fly migrants from the Texas border to Martha's Vineyard...."
Has it occurred to anyone that DeSantis may be doing them a favor? First, what do the people writing about this mean by 'migrants'? If they're just undocumented, indigent people crossing the border, they'll probably get better services in the more Democratic states anyway. It would be different if they were 'migrant workers' who had a job in FL and they were being shipped off. But if they're just looking for help with immigration & housing, I'd rather be in the NE than the South. Not that DeSantis isn't a major jerk off, of course. And, as often happens, the joke may be on the jerk off.

"....If those states can find the undocumented that easily and send them to D.C., why can't the Feds, influenced by blue voters from the nation's northern cities,....."
Gee, could it be because those same Republican rubes keep voting against the taxes to pay for federal border patrol agents? Today when I was getting a haircut, the subject came up as to why you can't get someone to do any home (bldg or appliance) repair in NW Washington. I refrained from asking if it could possibly be because, in the USA, Republicans don't believe in educating anyone so that they can get a job that requires any training or skill? (When I was in Bordeaux Fr in April, one of the things I noticed most was all the colleges, universities, & training schools. I mean ALL OVER the city. It looked to me like the main industry in Bordeaux was education.)

@14, I've been shopping for a cheaper, better country to retire to for decades. That's why I'm pretty satisfied living where I am. It ain't perfect. But I haven't found anything better yet. If you actually find some place better, let us all know.

@17, @18, finish reading as @20 did before you post. @10 is just saying he wants equitable, defined immigration policy. Pretty hard to argue with that.


@31: Blip, thanks for making several good points, and being civil about it. I did a bit more research, and I think part of the confusion is that some folks here may be confusing the definition of 'refugee' vs. 'asylee' (asylum seeker). In the eyes of US law, they're not the same.

To get refugee status, you must make your application outside the US, and wait for approval before entry.

To be an asylee, you need to either (a) show up at the border or (b) inside the country, and then request asylum. You may stay in the country while it is determined whether you meet the requirements for asylum (hint: simply fleeing economic hardship or simply seeing 'greener pastures' isn't valid grounds). If your claim is found to be without merit, you need to vamoose.

Sooo.... what does this mean? It means if the folks who came into this country illegally or showed up at the border requested Asylum, then they may remain here legally while their case is determined. To my mind, they are no longer 'Illegal Immigrants', but 'Asylum Seekers'.

I still feel sending some of these people to places like Martha's Vineyard is 'A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come'. Neither the Obama, Trump, nor Biden administrations have done enough to overhaul immigration, make our policies more transparent, enforce our rules, or do anything to address the growing issue of 'economic refugees' that is increasingly a world problem. The unfortunate residents of MV are finding out the hard way it may be easy to blithely virtue-signal and play at being a 'sanctuary community', but when huddled masses actually show up, it's a whole 'nother song to dance to.


States do not need "cheap farm labor."

Capitalists, Big Ag Corporations and farmers do

And they do not want to pay for fair wage labor and deliberately create a desperate "criminal" workforce they can then extort and exploit through lobbying for idiotic immigration draconian laws.


"The Administration does nothing to support these states that are told they have to absorb the hordes of illegals without any Federal Support."

This is a total lie.

First off describing human beings with a definable number as "hordes" is laughable well poisoning.

Second. immigration is down orders of magnitude. On net, international migration added 247,000 people to the U.S. population between mid-2020 and mid-2021, according to Census Bureau estimates. This represents a substantial drop from the prior two years, when net migration was 568,000 (for the year ending July 1, 2019) and 477,000 (for the year ending July 1, 2020).

Third, it was federal tax payer aid that these MAGA Governor dips hits used for their inhumane stunt. Aid that was supposed to go to their citizens suffering from the pandemic.

Fourth "this administration" gives more than than the last administration in aid for dealing with migrants. We spend over $333 BILLION on border and immigration security. President's Budget for DHS provides about $1.2B new dollars for border infrastructure this year.

The fact is the republican run state are corrupt and grift these programs. Texas and Desantis have created a budgetary black hole. They ar grilling this money.

Fifth, the aid for migrant themselves is roundly rejected by REPUBLICANS in congress.

In short. Go fuck yourself Troll.


@33, Just because its not legal to possess the gun doesn't mean he can't use it in self-defense.. Seperate crimes with sepearte elements.


@36- my understanding was the the unlawful possession of a firearm charge have been severed from the others, because trying him on that would’ve required that they tell the jury about his past felonies. He pled guilty to that, however, but was not sentenced to nearly what he should be for that. The day we get serious about locking up people who unlawful carry guns for the rest of their damn lives, a lot of this will stop.


@44. “because trying him on that would’ve required that they tell the jury about his past felonies”

And what would be the problem with telling the jurors about his past felonies? Isn’t that relevant information the jurors should have?


Yes, lock people up, specially poor people and POC. Oh. for the rest of their lives, that is your answer to destitute, mentally ill, desperate folks. You have NO comprehension of the causes to what the hell is going on in this sick, sick, system.

The southern border is under dispute by Mexico also because they had their lands stolen by this country and they see it as in dispute..

It works out well for the corporate elite to have destitute, brown people coming here for work? Doesn’t it? What a gift. Practically slavery. They are putting food on our tables at the risk of their lives. This economy would collapse without them.

When you have wealth are a white male or their imitators then you get to point fingers at everyone else and blame them for whatever you do not like. You get to own the legal system. The economic system. And talk shit on this thread at us without ever examining any facts or data that dispute your world view.


We are not even touching on the history or factual events that have caused people to often flee for their lives to come here.

The CIA invasion of countries is part of the picture.


@45 - generally prior acts (like the prior felonies here) are not admissible because they invite the jury to convict because they think the defendant is a criminal scumbag in general rather than because they think he did the particular thing he is on trial for.


@45 As a jury member I think it would be relevant knowing whether the suspect has a propensity towards violence. Normal people don't suddenly wake up one day and start committing acts of violence. If the person has never committed an act of violence the jury should know, on the other hand if the person has often committed acts of violence the jury should know that too.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.