Chris Hayes spars with Texas Congressman on ‘inhumane’ border policy: ‘You think this is fictional?’

(Video screenshots)

If far-left MSNBC host Chris Hayes were in charge of the country, nearly every illegal alien would be allowed to just waltz into the states like he or she lives here and then be on his or her merry way.

Why? Because, he explained during a heated discussion Monday with Texas Congressman Michael Burgess, letting illegal aliens do as they want all willy-nilly is better than subjecting them to the allegedly “inhumane conditions” they face in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s underfunded detention facilities.

“I would imagine you and your colleagues agree that these kinds of conditions are appalling and unacceptable?” he asked as the discussion on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes” began.

Prior to the start of the discussion, an MSNBC “reporter” had outlined the allegedly inhumane conditions of the facilities where ICE has been attempting to hold the never-ending stream of illegals who keep streaming across the unsecured southern U.S. border.

Burgess pushed back on the report that noting that the facilities he’s personally visited have been perfectly humane. He wasn’t wrong. Some detention facilities are fairly upscale:

He further pointed out that the Department of Homeland Security is doing its “level best” given the few resources the department has available at its disposal. This lack of resources is due to Democrat obstruction.

Ignoring everything Burgess had said, Hayes then brought up the MSNBC reporter’s allegations again, asking, “Do you think she’s making it up? … You think this is fictional?”

“I don’t know if it’s hyperbole. I know that the hatred for this president is so intense people are liable to say anything. I got to go look for myself and see for myself,” Burgess replied.

In reality, much of it is indeed fictional, in that the current fuss is predicated on a lie.

Watch part one of the discussion below:

Last week the left-wing media published video footage showing a Trump administration official ostensibly arguing that “children don’t need soap, toothbrushes, or beds to be ‘safe and sanitary’ while in Border Patrol custody.” What the partisan media neglected to mention were the actual facts behind that now-viral video.

“[T]he hearing in the video was related not to actions taken by the Trump administration, but to a challenge of a 2017 ruling that the CBP under the Obama administration had violated the Flores Settlement agreement with its treatment of children in custody,” National Review notes.

“The judge, in that case, cited specific infractions that she felt were in violation of the ‘safe and sanitary’ requirement under the Flores agreement and recommended a special monitor be appointed to ensure these facilities were complying with the original standard. The DOJ attorney in the video, Sarah Fabian, was not arguing that the United States should decline to provide those items to children, but rather that the Flores Settlement agreement didn’t specifically require those items.”

Sarah Fabian had been arguing in defense of the Obama administration’s actions.

This isn’t to say that these conditions haven’t persisted. It is to make it clear, however, that the fuss over the conditions in ICE’s detention facilities is as inextricably linked to former President Barack Hussein Obama as it is to current President Donald Trump.

The difference is that the folks in the media, including Hayes, never cared about these conditions until Trump stepped into office. Then suddenly it became an issue.

And then when the media released the aforementioned footage of Fabian defending the Obama’s administration’s policies, the left went into overdrive mode to smear Trump, never mind the actual facts.

Continuing the discussion on MSNBC, Hayes then exposed the Democrats’ true intentions.

“There are thousands of these children who do not need to be detained, that we’re spending $700, $800 a night on. We are taxing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and there are thousands who have family members who we don’t need to be detained,” he said.

“What is the ideal situation? The ideal situation from a policy perspective is if they have a family member in the states they can go to, for the U.S. government not to stretch its resources and have to look after them and put them with those folks.

In other words, any illegal alien who steps into the border with a child in stow — even if that child is in no way, shape or form related to him or her — should be allowed immediate entry into the interior so they can reunite with their alleged family members in the states.

Listen to the rest of the discussion below:

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …

But as hinted at by Burgess, many of the children that make it across the border are trafficking victims.

“I was in a hearing with the U.S. Helsinki Commission in October of 2016 and we heard from a number of people trafficked by ‘family members,'” he said. “The fact they’re going to live with a family member is not home free, it can still be trouble.”

And it oftentimes is trouble. During a congressional hearing in March, then-DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen presented evidence that Latin American cartels were “recycling” children by using them to help their clients obtain illegal entry:

This “recycling” operation was possible in part because of a catastrophically bad provision that Democrats had snuck into an omnibus spending bill that the president signed into law in February.

Hayes appears incapable of comprehending this because he lives in a fantasy world.

“But, but, but,” he argued as Burgess laid out the realities of illegal immigration.

But, but, but reality is not a utopia, Mr. Hayes …

“I think an open borders policy is not in the best interest of the United States of America,” Burgess said as the discussion concluded. “And I do think a secure border is in the best interest.”

Indeed.

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …

Comments

Latest Articles