Subject: Re: Appaling
A common democrat trick here is to "hire more Border Patrol agents" and then dedicate them to processing illegals inside the country, not turning them away at the border.

What do you mean?

Border patrol agents don't really ever "turn people away" at the border. Nearly all of the border is in the middle of the river; where it's not, there's a fence with the border patrol on our side of the fence. If the Border Patrol is interacting with someone, they're in the U.S. already - and Border Patrol is apprehending them. They're the equivalent of cops, not soldiers - they're not shooting people who are trying to cross, or physically repelling them using force. They arrest those people, who then get expelled later (either immediately through expedited deportation, or later after a hearing).

Do you have any evidence of what you're claiming here? Because it doesn't really make sense.

This needs to be the centerpiece of the bill, given that the loopholes are driving the surge.

They're not loopholes. People who are being persecuted in their homelands are allowed to request asylum. Conditions are terrible in several countries in Latin America, mostly in the Central Triangle, so a lot of people can meet those criteria. You can't change that by closing "loopholes" - you can only change it by excluding some persecuted people from being able to get asylum here. It's not legalistic drafting, but being willing to change the fundamental values of the asylum program.

That's the point Ace was making above, that in the 40 years I can remember this being a debate the terms of the debate are consistently laid out in the democrats' favor.

For the last 40 years, the "grand bargain" efforts have always been trading enhanced border security and increased internal enforcement for paths to citizenship for some portion of the internal population and potential increases in legal migration. Those aren't necessarily "in the Democrats' favor." It's true that because of the way that the U.S. government works, you're never going to get a deal unless the Democrats agree - so you're never going to get a deal that the Democrats come out worse on than the status quo. The same is true of the GOP, which is why all the DREAMERs and everyone else in the country are still in the position they're in, rather than getting legalized.

What immigration hawks have longed for is a proposal that gives them so much, and Democrats so little, that it's a clear loss for Democrats.** Which, obviously, doesn't happen under normal circumstances - because the Democrats would never agree to such a deal, and can always block it in the Senate. Now, because the Democrats are trying to get Ukraine aid through the Congress, the GOP actually does have - for the first time in 40 years - the opportunity to draft a deal that does cause the Democrats to lose on immigration. All hardliner/enforcement stuff, no DREAMER goodies or guest workers. Because they're trading that for the Ukraine aid. But now they can't agree to it, because of the 2024 Presidential election.

Albaby

**Immigration advocates long for the same thing - a proposal that gives them so much, and Republicans so little, that it's a clear loss for the GOP. Which also obviously never happens, even though the Democrats have also had trifectas in the federal government, for the same reason. That kind of deal won't clear the Senate.