I am wondering how much heavy lifting the word "near" is doing in the claim.

Gov. Abbott’s official Twitter account did tweet that 15,000 migrants have been bussed to “sanctuary cities” on 12/20/22. That does not provide a direct link to the bus drop off in question though.

Kamala Harris' house is Number One Observatory Circle (where all VPs have lived for almost 50 years).

For context, look up "DeSantis migrants Matha's vineyard". The governor of Florida did something similar, so it's a thing now.

@OwenReynolds why though? As in, if I'm a typically conservative christian constituent of one of these politicians, how does this action lead me to become more likely to vote for them?

By the way I'm Australian and am dumbfounded by US politics, hence why that question might seem ignorant.

@quant The Republican Party has derived immense political capital and enthusiasm from “culture wars” for at least 30 years now, and at this point much of their base responds enthusiastically to “owning the libs.” Abbott likely has presidential ambitions, and the frontrunner for the next Republican nomination (DeSantis) pulled a similar stunt recently, so he’s trying to “one up” his competition. In both cases, it is a demonstration that they’re not afraid of disdain from “liberal elites” (read: anyone who might decry this maneuver), and willing to fight for Republican values.

@quant The short version of KRyan's explanation boils down to "The cruelty is the point" and "owning the libs".

It doesn't seem to be in his political interest to do this -- Narrowly and personally, if his voters like this action, it IS in his interest. More widely, if he feels that the US policy is broken in a way this action will get attention and correction for, again, it IS in his interest. He may be think that freezing temps are worse than the dangers of war that asylum seekers are escaping from, and as cruel as it is to make this busload a pawn, it may be to the ultimate greater good. (Note I am responding to post, not discussing with others, and am not speaking for or against this policy.)

@quant You're correct to be dumbfounded. If Greg Abbott actually cared about the well-being of immigrants, he would coordinate with aid organizations and send them to locations prepared to receive them. That would serve both his claimed purposes of easing the burden on border communities and protecting the migrants. Instead he dumps them as a stunt. Republicans have spent the last years painting only migrants from the southern border, as subhuman criminals and cheats. It plays to casual racism and "they're out to get you" fears of their voting base overriding Christian charitable values.

Remember that "conservative Christian values" does not mean "be nice uber alles." Christ was someone who was never afraid to publicly call out the hypocrisy and harmful policies of his own political leaders, regardless of the personal cost it brought upon himself.

The immigrrants were probably happy to go to Washington D.C just Martha's Vineyard who easily have handled their presence.

@MasonWheeler But not regardless of the cost it brought upon others. The times Christ comes closest to hypocrisy are when he's protecting others. John 8:11, he's protecting a criminal whose case is being used as a "gotcha" against him.

@wizzwizz4 Not true. In the case in question, the entire reason why it's a "gotcha" is that the offender was not a criminal under Roman law, but had committed an offence against the Law of Moses which, the Jews being a subjugated people, was no longer their applicable code of laws. (And they weren't even doing it right by the Law of Moses, which required both offenders, not just the one, to be brought to trial together.) And more importantly, Jesus quite pointedly did not defend or accept her wrongdoing; rather he told her to shape up and stop sinning.

@MasonWheeler And stoning was a punishment for a different offence, under Mosaic law, sure. I don't think that level of pedantry about the word "criminal" is necessary, though; not when you're talking about the religion where "love God" and "be nice to people" are the two fundamental precepts (Matthew 22:37:40). Christ didn't do this kind of thing – there's a difference between words that put oneself in danger and placing others in the cold of winter when making your points about the hypocrisy of others.

Greg Abbott is politician. Politicians think they own the people, especially "low life" people who can't even resist, so yes it makes perfect sense that he's abusing immigrants for his own needs, regardless of his political views.

@wizzwizz4 No, "be nice to people" is not the second principle; loving them is. That's not pedantry; it's a crucial distinction that is commonly blurred by malicious people to use as a weapon against Christians. But it only works on those who aren't aware of the trick.

@MasonWheeler I'm confused, do you think Abbott is being a "conservative Christian" by sending a busload of migrants at personal cost upon himself?

@AzorAhai-him- One idea that has always been central to both conservative thought and Christian morality is perspective: taking the long view when looking at an issue. From that viewpoint, yes, absolutely, and it really shows in both the act and the response from his political enemies. Abbott is working to stop a large-scale distant government from dumping a massive problem in his lap by making it hard for them to ignore, whereas his enemies try their best to ignore this and distract from the point by going "oh, look at all the cold people!", refocusing on a strictly immediate-term issue.

@quant You might want to get rid of "as a political stunt" from the title of the question. Whether Abbott did direct this transportation is a fact that can be disputed or confirmed (and it is easily confirmed). Whether he did it as a political stunt -- you are now asking us to read Abbott's mind.

@quant Never mind, I removed that wording for you.

@MasonWheeler My comment was deleted. Abbott didn't do this at any personal cost. As long as we can agree that his actions can be both "conservative Christian" and "morally reprehensible," then there's no conflict, I suppose.

@AzorAhai "Conservative Christian" is a moral ethic, so if his actions are consistent with that ethic, then they could only be morally objectionable to a different ethic.

@MasonWheeler This half-pedantry confuses me. Loving them as you do yourself is the second principle. Unless one thinks Christians are supposed to be cruel to themselves (which, to be fair, is a viewpoint held by some), this does entail being nice to people. There are many other ways somebody could bring this issue to the doorstep of a particular leader – for example, standing outside the doorstep with a sign, shouting. (But that'd involve standing in the cold personally, rather than making somebody else suffer.)

@Schwern in Abbott's point of view these are economic immigrants that should be deported rather than allowed to stay in the US, that's the whole point of the stunt. He'd prefer to send them out on the first plane to South America but the Feds won't let him.

But I also don't think the White House would make such an accusation without basis. No, you don't think :-)

@AzorAhai-him- What is morally reprehensible about holding leaders accountable for the consequences of their bad policies?

@MasonWheeler There are lots of reasons people are uncomfortable about this action. There's the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (the intuitive idea that, if you're going to take action about a situation, and you have the ability to solve it, you ought to solve it – criticised in my link); there's the fact that Washington D.C. was colder than Texas that night; there's distaste for using people as props (especially at Christmas); and some believe that he had many other options, most better at "holding accountable".

@MasonWheeler The part where vulnerable people were dumped in the cold with no plans to help them ... lol. I hope you are never in need of help.

@wizzwizz4 Copenhagen is not valid; he had no ability to solve the problem, which is the entire point. He was sending the problem to the people who 1) were responsible for the problem's existence and 2) had the ability to resolve it where he (and anyone in Texas) did not. The temperature difference is not particularly significant; below freezing is below freezing. And it's easy to say "he had many other options," but so far no one has backed up this assertion. The simple fact is, Federal preemption has stripped away every "better" option.

@AzorAhai-him- Repeating the same lie over and over and hoping people will come to believe it's true? You really should look into who it was who popularized that strategy. The fact is, the migrants were already out in the cold with no help for them, because El Paso was overwhelmed and had been stripped of all good options through preemption. Dumping the problem on the people responsible for it was by far the best bad option available in a time where no good options remained available.

@MasonWheeler Sure he had the ability to solve the problem! He could've abandoned his entire life's work, liquidated or leveraged all his assets, called in all his favours, and thereby built up capacity to house, feed, clothe and support a decent proportion of those currently in need. That'd "be unreasonable" (why?) – but he could've set the people on that bus up with shelter in Texas, and it wouldn't have cost him all that much. Right or wrong, he didn't. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics only applies to what you engage with, and he certainly engaged with the people on this bus.

@wizzwizz4 Even assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that that hypothetical course of action would have worked at all, and assuming furthermore that it would have worked quickly enough to make a difference to those particular people, it would only have addressed those particular people. And that's not addressing the actual problem. This is exactly what I said above: at the core of Christian morality and conservative thought is the notion of perspective, and criticisms of it almost invariably do everything possible to distract from that perspective and refocus on minutiae instead.

@MasonWheeler Pretty much, yeah, but most people go off their intuition when assessing right and wrong. I don't think that idea of "perspective" (usually called consequentialist ethics) is universal or unique to Christian morality, nor to conservative (or USA-conservative) thought. What's perhaps more unique is the perspective – which things are valued, and which things are believed about various proposals. I'd really like to continue this discussion, but it's beginning to dawn on me just how off-topic we've got; until this conversation is moved to chat, we probably shouldn't?

@MasonWheeler Lol, which part is a lie? "Dumped in the cold" does not imply they weren't cold before, nothing I said was a lie.

@MasonWheeler What, in your view, is "the actual problem"?

@wizzwizz4 The actual problem is that the border states are being overwhelmed by an unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants, far beyond what even previous Democratic administrations have acknowledged as "crisis levels." They don't have the resources to take them in or care for them, and are being prevented by federal policy from doing anything to keep them out or send them back.

Given that problem, and with all good solutions foreclosed already, what better response is there than to drop the problem in the laps of the policy-makers who created the problem and tell them they need to clean up their own mess?

@MasonWheeler Why are people crossing the border more than usual?

@MasonWheeler If the situation was fine in the past, and it's not fine now ("unprecedented"), then the actual problem is, surely, something to do with whatever's changed. You say "the policy-makers who created the problem", so I'm guessing federal policy has changed. Is that right?

(This is me fishing for information. I don't know enough to have an opinion, and I can't make sense of the news reporting.)