This is insane partisanship. Vote all members of the party of NO out of office and save the Republic. Did Johnson’s god Trump EVER achieve ZERO? Hell no! HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!!! Do as I say, and not what we’ve done.
Border problem.
- Thread starter gopokes83
- Start date
Sadly there are people gobbling up this crap like a Thanksgiving meal.
The single greatest thing that could ever happen to this country (and turn it around from circling the drain) is to get religion all the way out of our government. At the very least, it would make the grifting game a little harder.
It was in reference to the posts before claiming all of a sudden the Dems are all about the border and the GOP is in the way. My post was to say neither cares all of it is about the election and none of it is about the border. Example Biden says he can close the border now…..that was racist a few a years ago. GOP that wanted a wall won’t have good faith negotiations. It’s election time not problem solving time.
The world according to Donny:
Biden: I can close the border now. Let’s get ‘er done. Let’s sit and negotiate.
GOP: Wanted a wall, but won’t have good faith negotiations or come to table.
Donny: It's both their faults that no deal will get done. It’s election time, not problem solving time.
Last edited:
An interesting and low-bias (IMHO) article from the NYT on immigration: (sorry about the weird formatting)
Good morning. We’re covering Mexico’s immigration crackdown — as well as children's online safety, campaign funding and Apple’s new headset.
López Obrador responded by telling Biden to send a delegation of top officials to visit him in Mexico City. The next week, that delegation, led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, arrived for talks. Partly in response, Mexico soon began to enforce its own immigration laws more strictly, making it harder for migrants from other countries to use Mexico as a route to the U.S. Among other things, López Obrador’s government has increased deportations of migrants to their home countries and disrupted bus networks run by cartels that funnel migrants from other countries toward the U.S. border.
The crackdown has made a noticeable difference, too.
Migration flows at the U.S.-Mexico border fell more than 50 percent in early January, according to data that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency released last week. The numbers have since risen somewhat, officials have told me, but are still well below the December levels.
Mexico’s crackdown doesn’t come close to solving the migration problem, of course. Illegal immigration remains far higher than it was in the 2010s. Many migrants now believe that they will be able to remain in the U.S. for years, so long as they reach the border — regardless of what of the law says. Voters are unhappy about the situation. So are mayors and governors from both parties who are struggling with housing and social services.
Nonetheless, Mexico’s recent efforts offer a reminder: Stricter enforcement of immigration laws really does tend to reduce migration flows.
Many progressive Democrats, for their part, argue that border security is ineffective at stopping illegal immigration. The way to make a difference, they say, is to reduce poverty and oppression in other countries and to make people less interested in moving to the U.S.
But the evidence belies these arguments. The security of the border both directly and indirectly affects migration flows. In the short term, a less porous border allows fewer people to enter the U.S. For example, the migrants whom Mexico recently deported — including some who had arrived by airplane from outside the Western Hemisphere — might otherwise have made it to the U.S.
Longer term, a more secure border changes the calculation for people contemplating a harrowing journey toward the U.S. If entry to the U.S. — a far richer country than most — seems likely, many more people will attempt it. If it seems unlikely, the costs of the journey will dissuade more.
In response to Trump’s extreme opposition to immigration — including his lies and racist insults about immigrants — Biden and other Democrats moved far in the other direction. As The Economist recently wrote, Trump “radicalized” some Democrats on immigration. The party’s 2020 platform said nothing about border security and was devoted largely to making entry into the U.S. easier, mostly through legal pathways but also by going easier on illegal immigration.
I want to emphasize that most Americans have long believed, and still believe, that their country should be a haven for people fleeing political repression. The Biden administration’s approach has gone further, however. In the name of humanitarianism, it has broadened policies that were historically focused on political refugees, changing them to admit more migrants who are attracted to the U.S.’s high living standards.
“What’s novel about the Biden years has been the vastly expanded use of parole and asylum in boosting immigration by those who could not hope to get through normal legal channels,” John Judis has written for the Liberal Patriot newsletter. In response, migration jumped far above the levels during Trump’s or Barack Obama’s presidencies.
(Social media videos, showing migrants who have made it to the U.S., also play a role, my colleague Miriam Jordan points out. Her latest article focuses on migrants’ belief — often accurate — that the country’s dysfunctional asylum system will allow them to stay indefinitely.)
It remains unclear whether Republicans will agree to such a deal — or, mostly for political reasons, will choose to let the problem fester. Without a deal, Biden is likely to look for ways within current law to tighten border security. They exist but are more limited.
Either way, the Biden administration appears to be on the verge of doing the same thing that it recently urged Mexico to do: enforce existing immigration laws more tightly.
February 1, 2024 |
|
Mexico’s president meets with the U.S. secretary of state. Fernando Llano/Associated Press |
Government isn’t powerless
On the Thursday before Christmas, President Biden called Mexico’s president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and asked for help. The number of migrants crossing into the U.S. — about 10,000 per day — had reached the highest level of Biden’s presidency. The surge was creating major problems, including lockdowns at a New Mexico high school where migrants were streaming across the grounds and the closure of a rail bridge over the Rio Grande that carried commercial goods.López Obrador responded by telling Biden to send a delegation of top officials to visit him in Mexico City. The next week, that delegation, led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, arrived for talks. Partly in response, Mexico soon began to enforce its own immigration laws more strictly, making it harder for migrants from other countries to use Mexico as a route to the U.S. Among other things, López Obrador’s government has increased deportations of migrants to their home countries and disrupted bus networks run by cartels that funnel migrants from other countries toward the U.S. border.
The crackdown has made a noticeable difference, too.
Migration flows at the U.S.-Mexico border fell more than 50 percent in early January, according to data that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency released last week. The numbers have since risen somewhat, officials have told me, but are still well below the December levels.
Mexico’s crackdown doesn’t come close to solving the migration problem, of course. Illegal immigration remains far higher than it was in the 2010s. Many migrants now believe that they will be able to remain in the U.S. for years, so long as they reach the border — regardless of what of the law says. Voters are unhappy about the situation. So are mayors and governors from both parties who are struggling with housing and social services.
Nonetheless, Mexico’s recent efforts offer a reminder: Stricter enforcement of immigration laws really does tend to reduce migration flows.
Cost vs. benefit
That point may seem obvious, but it’s one that many politicians from both parties question. In recent days, House Republicans and Donald Trump have criticized the outlines of a bipartisan Senate deal that would significantly tighten border security. Trump suggested it was “worse than no border deal.” (The most plausible explanation for his stance is politics — namely, that continuing border chaos could increase his chances of beating Biden in November.)Many progressive Democrats, for their part, argue that border security is ineffective at stopping illegal immigration. The way to make a difference, they say, is to reduce poverty and oppression in other countries and to make people less interested in moving to the U.S.
But the evidence belies these arguments. The security of the border both directly and indirectly affects migration flows. In the short term, a less porous border allows fewer people to enter the U.S. For example, the migrants whom Mexico recently deported — including some who had arrived by airplane from outside the Western Hemisphere — might otherwise have made it to the U.S.
Longer term, a more secure border changes the calculation for people contemplating a harrowing journey toward the U.S. If entry to the U.S. — a far richer country than most — seems likely, many more people will attempt it. If it seems unlikely, the costs of the journey will dissuade more.
Biden’s novelty
Mexico’s recent crackdown is merely the latest evidence of this pattern. Biden’s presidency is an even bigger example.In response to Trump’s extreme opposition to immigration — including his lies and racist insults about immigrants — Biden and other Democrats moved far in the other direction. As The Economist recently wrote, Trump “radicalized” some Democrats on immigration. The party’s 2020 platform said nothing about border security and was devoted largely to making entry into the U.S. easier, mostly through legal pathways but also by going easier on illegal immigration.
I want to emphasize that most Americans have long believed, and still believe, that their country should be a haven for people fleeing political repression. The Biden administration’s approach has gone further, however. In the name of humanitarianism, it has broadened policies that were historically focused on political refugees, changing them to admit more migrants who are attracted to the U.S.’s high living standards.
“What’s novel about the Biden years has been the vastly expanded use of parole and asylum in boosting immigration by those who could not hope to get through normal legal channels,” John Judis has written for the Liberal Patriot newsletter. In response, migration jumped far above the levels during Trump’s or Barack Obama’s presidencies.
(Social media videos, showing migrants who have made it to the U.S., also play a role, my colleague Miriam Jordan points out. Her latest article focuses on migrants’ belief — often accurate — that the country’s dysfunctional asylum system will allow them to stay indefinitely.)
A new approach
In recent months, Biden has begun to change his initial approach, recognizing the problems with a more open border. Last week, he promised to “to shut down the border” if Congress passed a bill that allowed him to do so.It remains unclear whether Republicans will agree to such a deal — or, mostly for political reasons, will choose to let the problem fester. Without a deal, Biden is likely to look for ways within current law to tighten border security. They exist but are more limited.
Either way, the Biden administration appears to be on the verge of doing the same thing that it recently urged Mexico to do: enforce existing immigration laws more tightly.
For more
|
The article from The Economist linked in your story is also very good and also low on bias.An interesting and low-bias (IMHO) article from the NYT on immigration: (sorry about the weird formatting)
Good morning. We’re covering Mexico’s immigration crackdown — as well as children's online safety, campaign funding and Apple’s new headset.
February 1, 2024
Government isn’t powerless
On the Thursday before Christmas, President Biden called Mexico’s president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and asked for help. The number of migrants crossing into the U.S. — about 10,000 per day — had reached the highest level of Biden’s presidency. The surge was creating major problems, including lockdowns at a New Mexico high school where migrants were streaming across the grounds and the closure of a rail bridge over the Rio Grande that carried commercial goods.
López Obrador responded by telling Biden to send a delegation of top officials to visit him in Mexico City. The next week, that delegation, led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, arrived for talks. Partly in response, Mexico soon began to enforce its own immigration laws more strictly, making it harder for migrants from other countries to use Mexico as a route to the U.S. Among other things, López Obrador’s government has increased deportations of migrants to their home countries and disrupted bus networks run by cartels that funnel migrants from other countries toward the U.S. border.
The crackdown has made a noticeable difference, too.
Migration flows at the U.S.-Mexico border fell more than 50 percent in early January, according to data that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency released last week. The numbers have since risen somewhat, officials have told me, but are still well below the December levels.
Mexico’s crackdown doesn’t come close to solving the migration problem, of course. Illegal immigration remains far higher than it was in the 2010s. Many migrants now believe that they will be able to remain in the U.S. for years, so long as they reach the border — regardless of what of the law says. Voters are unhappy about the situation. So are mayors and governors from both parties who are struggling with housing and social services.
Nonetheless, Mexico’s recent efforts offer a reminder: Stricter enforcement of immigration laws really does tend to reduce migration flows.
Cost vs. benefit
That point may seem obvious, but it’s one that many politicians from both parties question. In recent days, House Republicans and Donald Trump have criticized the outlines of a bipartisan Senate deal that would significantly tighten border security. Trump suggested it was “worse than no border deal.” (The most plausible explanation for his stance is politics — namely, that continuing border chaos could increase his chances of beating Biden in November.)
Many progressive Democrats, for their part, argue that border security is ineffective at stopping illegal immigration. The way to make a difference, they say, is to reduce poverty and oppression in other countries and to make people less interested in moving to the U.S.
But the evidence belies these arguments. The security of the border both directly and indirectly affects migration flows. In the short term, a less porous border allows fewer people to enter the U.S. For example, the migrants whom Mexico recently deported — including some who had arrived by airplane from outside the Western Hemisphere — might otherwise have made it to the U.S.
Longer term, a more secure border changes the calculation for people contemplating a harrowing journey toward the U.S. If entry to the U.S. — a far richer country than most — seems likely, many more people will attempt it. If it seems unlikely, the costs of the journey will dissuade more.
Biden’s novelty
Mexico’s recent crackdown is merely the latest evidence of this pattern. Biden’s presidency is an even bigger example.
In response to Trump’s extreme opposition to immigration — including his lies and racist insults about immigrants — Biden and other Democrats moved far in the other direction. As The Economist recently wrote, Trump “radicalized” some Democrats on immigration. The party’s 2020 platform said nothing about border security and was devoted largely to making entry into the U.S. easier, mostly through legal pathways but also by going easier on illegal immigration.
I want to emphasize that most Americans have long believed, and still believe, that their country should be a haven for people fleeing political repression. The Biden administration’s approach has gone further, however. In the name of humanitarianism, it has broadened policies that were historically focused on political refugees, changing them to admit more migrants who are attracted to the U.S.’s high living standards.
“What’s novel about the Biden years has been the vastly expanded use of parole and asylum in boosting immigration by those who could not hope to get through normal legal channels,” John Judis has written for the Liberal Patriot newsletter. In response, migration jumped far above the levels during Trump’s or Barack Obama’s presidencies.
(Social media videos, showing migrants who have made it to the U.S., also play a role, my colleague Miriam Jordan points out. Her latest article focuses on migrants’ belief — often accurate — that the country’s dysfunctional asylum system will allow them to stay indefinitely.)
A new approach
In recent months, Biden has begun to change his initial approach, recognizing the problems with a more open border. Last week, he promised to “to shut down the border” if Congress passed a bill that allowed him to do so.
It remains unclear whether Republicans will agree to such a deal — or, mostly for political reasons, will choose to let the problem fester. Without a deal, Biden is likely to look for ways within current law to tighten border security. They exist but are more limited.
Either way, the Biden administration appears to be on the verge of doing the same thing that it recently urged Mexico to do: enforce existing immigration laws more tightly.
For more
- House Republicans accuse Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s homeland security secretary, of breaking the law by failing to enforce immigration rules. But federal law gives the administration broad discretion over border policy.
- Read how Biden has struggled to enact his immigration plans and failed to manage a rise in arrivals.
As The Economist recently wrote, Trump “radicalized” some Democrats on immigration
Last edited:
What do you call this?The world according to Donny:
Biden: I can close the border now. Let’s get ‘er done. Let’s sit and negotiate.
GOP: Wanted a wall, but won’t have good faith negotiations or come to table.
Donny: It's both their faults that no deal will get done. It’s election time, not problem solving time.
Did Biden wake up one morning and get told where he was and say hey I’m gonna do what I called racist after three years and 9 million people. I’m gonna push a bill now that my party doesn’t have the majority anymore.
Did the reps that chanted build the wall through dozens of campaigns and Trumps term wake up and say….nope we ain’t doing nothing at the border nothing to see here.
Or does the GOP know that Biden looks really bad over the border that he has completely ignored his whole term so they don’t want to do anything that could help him especially with him losing votes in cities he would carry….does Biden know if the courts don’t stop Trump he won’t win and the border is big a reaon so it’s time to be racist to look tough and make the GOP look bad. Why all of a sudden have both groups flipped. Did the Dems have a number in mind before they acted….7 million not yet….8 million not yet…9 million ok let’s start. Did the Reps not want any of the folks they labeled as rapist and murders to cross but now that we have lost any semblance of control whatsoever feel like we are doing the right thing……or are polling numbers for the election guiding them?
This is all posturing. 100% posturing by both sides. Just like it has been for years.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to send hundreds of National Guard troops to assist Gov. Abbott at southern border
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Thursday that he is sending National Guard troops from his state to support Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's efforts to stop the influx of illegal immigration at the southern border.
In a Thursday morning press conference, DeSantis announced he is sending a battalion of "up to" 1,000 soldiers of the Florida National Guard will be sent to Texas.
"We are here to join as Floridians to say that we need to stop this invasion at our southern border once and for all," DeSantis said standing in front of members of the Florida National Guard and a sign that said, "stop the invasion."
Additionally, the Florida State Guard will be deployed, which marks the first time that group has been deployed out of state.
"Biden has the authority to close this border today," DeSantis said. "If he wanted to, he lacks the will to get the job done. He lacks the capacity to see the problem for what it is and to get the job done."
Over a dozen states have announced that they support Abbott's agenda on illegal immigration and have said they will provide resources to help him secure the border amid record levels of illegal immigration.
Abbott is currently fighting multiple legal battles with the Biden administration. The federal government has threatened legal action over Texas’ seizure of Shelby Park near Eagle Pass, while lawsuits are ongoing over the administration’s cutting of razor wire set up by Texas and the establishment of buoys in the Rio Grande.
The Supreme Court recently found in the administration's favor when it granted an emergency appeal to allow agents to keep cutting border wire set up by Texas along the border. Texas this week published images of it strengthening physical barriers along Eagle Pass.
The administration has also sued over a recently signed law that allows Texas state and local officials to arrest illegal immigrants. The administration has accused Texas of interfering with federal control over immigration and border security, and has said it is putting agents and migrants in danger.
Abbott, however, cited constitutional language that demands the federal government "protect each [State] against invasion" and the right of states to protect their own borders.
Abbott argues that "the failure of the Biden administration" to fulfill those duties triggers a clause in Article 1 that "reserves to this State the right of self-defense." He notes he has already declared an "invasion" to invoke the authority, which he calls "the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary."
"If the Constitution really made states powerless to defend themselves against an invasion, it wouldn’t have been ratified in the first place and Texas would have never joined the union when it did," DeSantis wrote on social media recently.
If you want to know what's in the works on the bipartisan approach read this !!
news.yahoo.com
So where did this 5,000-a-day figure come from?
The bipartisan deal does include provisions that would shut down the border entirely if a certain threshold is hit, but those are border encounters, not crossings. As noted above, no migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally would be allowed into the country unless they passed asylum interviews or were being held under government supervision.
In addition to those provisions, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure.
The bipartisan border deal would not allow 5,000 illegal crossings per day, despite what Trump says
Does the new immigration bill allow 5,000 illegal border crossings per day as Donald Trump and conservatives keep saying? No. This is what it would do.
So where did this 5,000-a-day figure come from?
The bipartisan deal does include provisions that would shut down the border entirely if a certain threshold is hit, but those are border encounters, not crossings. As noted above, no migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally would be allowed into the country unless they passed asylum interviews or were being held under government supervision.
In addition to those provisions, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure.
Crenshaw hits GOP colleagues opposed to border deal: ‘The height of stupidity’
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) swiped at his Republican colleagues for opposing a deal being crafted in the Senate that pairs border and migration policy changes with Ukraine aid before the text of the bill is out.
“The height of stupidity is having a strong opinion on something you know nothing about,” Crenshaw said Thursday. “So, I don’t have a strong opinion on the bill because I haven’t seen it. Nobody has.”
Crenshaw’s message is a major break from top House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). Johnson has said if reports about what is in the deal are true, it would be “dead on arrival” in the House.
“I’m extremely disappointed in the very strange maneuvering by many on the right to torpedo a potential border reform bill. That’s what we all ran on doing,” Crenshaw continued. “If we have a bill that, on net, significantly decreases illegal immigration, and we sabotage that, that is inconsistent with what we told our voters we would do.”
“It would be a pretty unacceptable dereliction of your duty,” Crenshaw said.
One point of contention between Republican critics and the deal’s defenders is over new executive emergency border shutdown powers that would kick in after 5,000 crossings per day. Johnson said this week that the authority should be utilized at zero crossings per day.
Some conservatives have argued that the provision greenlights 5,000 illegal crossings per day, but Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), one of the Republican negotiators on the deal, said that is “misinformation.”
Disputes over the reported details may soon be resolved. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said later Thursday that the Senate border deal would be released before Sunday.
Crenshaw also brought up the argument that some Republicans are opposed to the bill for other political reasons.
“There are some in the Senate and in the House who are desperately trying to sabotage it for other reasons. Maybe they think that securing the border would help [President] Biden politically. Which, of course it would, but I want to secure the border. That’s what I told my voters I would do,” Crenshaw said.
Another major figure looming over border talks is former President Trump, who has urged Republicans — and Johnson specifically — to “only make a deal that is PERFECT ON THE BORDER” and reject any Senate deal “unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions & Millions of people.”
Asked about Trump, though, Crenshaw told a CNN reporter to not “create some kind of drama here.”
“Stop instigating against border security,” Crenshaw said. “If the bill sucks, the bill sucks. But we don’t know if the bill sucks.”
So if election numbers are pushing Biden to actually do something….
Seems like a good time to strike while the iron is hot doesn’t it?
Yes it does.
Bipartisan negotiations in the Senate see that. Why can’t you?
Yeah Im saying both are full of crap. And you know they are you just like to argue on websites cause you’re not good enough to get out of public work to do it in real life. This is all election crap. Both sides are playing games.
