Post New

...from Fox 'News' reporter, Bill Melugin:

- No amnesty/legalization of anyone already in the U.S. illegally.

- Funds an increase in ICE detention capacity to approx. 50,000 from the current 34,000.

- At 7 day rolling average of 5,000 encounters per day, or 8,500 encounters in a single day, DHS is *required* to shut the border down, and turn away anyone who crosses. No new asylum claims will be allowed and anybody crossing will be removed. Would end the whole idea of "I made it to U.S. soil, you have to process me." That would be over, Border Patrol would not process the illegal crosser and they would be removed - no asylum claim permitted, unless its made at a port of entry.

- This does not mean 5,000 are "allowed in" before this authority kicks in. Single adults would be detained, families would be released via ATD (alternatives to detention), and asylum cases would be fast tracked to months rather than years under a new rapid/expedited expulsion system. Those who fail would be quickly removed from the US. Those who initially pass would be released with work authorization and 90 day supervision until final asylum claim is determined.

- The shut down authority doesn't drop until crossings decrease significantly in the days following the shut down.

- Significantly tougher asylum requirements, and a higher credible fear standard, including three bars to eligibility. 1) Criminal history, 2) Could they have resettled in another country on the way to the US? 3) Could they have resettled somewhere else in their own country? Just saying you're scared to return home will no longer be enough in initial interview.

- It *appears* that the legislation would move asylum claim decisions away from immigration judges, and instead have them be handled by USCIS.

- $1.4 billion in FEMA funding available for disbursement to NGOs/municipalities, but some of that money doesn't unlock until key border security metrics are hit with ICE detention beds, ICE & Border Patrol new hires, and at least 1,500 deportation flights.

- Ends use of parole releases via CBP One app, and ends parole for illegal crossers between ports of entry.

- Keeps humanitarian parole as it was originally intended (medical procedures, court cases, etc), and keeps the current Biden admin parole program in place for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans.

- 50,000 new visas over 5 years.

- Funding to hire hundreds more ICE deportation officers, Border Patrol agents, and USCIS asylum officers, and greatly increases number of deportation flights.

- No unaccompanied minors can be removed, and some of these minors will receive attorneys, either pro bono or taxpayer funded.

- Ends some catch and release, but not all (families and unaccompanied minors not detained).

- DHS will have 90 days to set this new system up before it takes effect.

- There is a provision in the bill that would allow the President to suspend the "shut down" authority. It says: "Authorizes the President to suspend the border emergency on an emergency basis for up to 45 days if it is in the national interest."

Context: The border has seen at least 5,000 encounters almost every single day the last couple years under Biden. If this bill were signed into law, the border would likely be shut down on the first day it takes effect.

The status quo right now is when the border is overwhelmed, "release everyone". This bill switches that to, when the border is overwhelmed "remove everyone."

At 7 day rolling average of 5,000 encounters per day, or 8,500 encounters in a single day, DHS is *required* to shut the border down, and turn away anyone who crosses.

"Required" is a word that only has meaning when there is an entity who will, automatically and without fail, enforce it. What happens if Mayorkas doesn't dive into this with the gusto we are supposed to assume will be there?

"Shut the Border Down". If 5,000 migrants a day are flowing at us in a steady stream, what does shutting the border look like? Trigger hit, Slam the door is shut! Day 1 you have 5,000 piled against the Mexican side, next day add another 5,000 to the pile, by the end of seven days, 35,000 and still coming, and so on? Who tells the advancing caravans to halt for seven days and will they comply?

DHS will have 90 days to set this new system up before it takes effect.

Ha, it will take years to hire, train, and equip the new agents and support employees. All we can hope for is serious dedicated effort for as long as it takes. That gets back to first point, who is going to make them do it.

That bill doesn't expire with a POTUS. So even if you think this POTUS won't do it, the next one may. And the one after that. Etc.

The "advancing caravans" don't matter. If the border is closed, when they get here they will be expelled. No amnesty processing, no nuthin'. As I read it.

Or....we can keep going as we are, legally obligated to process anyone who reaches US soil and claims amnesty. I thought you didn't like that?

That bill doesn't expire with a POTUS. So even if you think this POTUS won't do it, the next one may. And the one after that. Etc.

The "advancing caravans" don't matter. If the border is closed, when they get here they will be expelled. No amnesty processing, no nuthin'. As I read it.

Or....we can keep going as we are, legally obligated to process anyone who reaches US soil and claims amnesty. I thought you didn't like that? - 1pg

-------------

Oh, I am for the bill for several reasons, one of which is that Trump will wield the authority in a way I think serves the country better than Biden.

However, I am asking a very real world question, when the border is closed, what does that look like, do migrants pile ever deeper on the Mexican side, if not, why not?

Piling up on the Mexican side may not be acceptable to Mexico, why would it? Then what?

This is a real world implementation question that must have an answer if you really expect a "shut down" to mean anything.

Context: The border has seen at least 5,000 encounters almost every single day the last couple years under Biden. If this bill were signed into law, the border would likely be shut down on the first day it takes effect.
-------------------------

Thanks for that recap.

Context: The border has seen at least 5,000 encounters almost every single day the last couple years under Biden. If this bill were signed into law, the border would likely be shut down on the first day it takes effect.
-------------------------

Thanks for that recap.

-----------------

That fast, huh. Like the resources necessary to implement a shut down will somehow wink into existence like a quantum particle.

That fast, huh. Like the resources necessary to implement a shut down will somehow wink into existence like a quantum particle.


I think shutting down will be that fast. Getting the extra border agents may take a bit. I think you can set up the court system quickly, it will just be slow at first and speed up.

"Required" is a word that only has meaning when there is an entity who will, automatically and without fail, enforce it. What happens if Mayorkas doesn't dive into this with the gusto we are supposed to assume will be there?

"Shut the Border Down". If 5,000 migrants a day are flowing at us in a steady stream, what does shutting the border look like? Trigger hit, Slam the door is shut! Day 1 you have 5,000 piled against the Mexican side, next day add another 5,000 to the pile, by the end of seven days, 35,000 and still coming, and so on? Who tells the advancing caravans to halt for seven days and will they comply?

So. We were right about the bill.
It's DOA in the House, as it should be.

It's $118Billion, of which only $20B goes to the border.

No.

I think shutting down will be that fast. Getting the extra border agents may take a bit. I think you can set up the court system quickly, it will just be slow at first and speed up. = Lapsody

I hope you are right...

Maybe the declaration to shut down, but the doing is something more than a week or two.......

Any thoughts on my rhetorical question, where do the migrants, who expecting to get in, are suddenly rejected, where do they stack up? My concern that this "stack" will create its own mess, bad optics, requiring a compassionate but "temporary" suspension of these sweet new rules.

Any thoughts on my rhetorical question, where do the migrants, who expecting to get in, are suddenly rejected, where do they stack up? My concern that this "stack" will create its own mess, bad optics, requiring a compassionate but "temporary" suspension of these sweet new rules.

I would first look to see what they did with everyone when Title 42 was in effect.

"Its use was implemented under the Trump administration and has continued under the Biden administration to prohibit illegal immigration in the United States. Persons subject to the order are not held in congregate areas for processing and are instead immediately expelled to their country of last transit."

Persons subject to the order are not held in congregate areas for processing and are instead immediately expelled to their country of last transit." - Lapsody

I am fine with that but Mexico probably isn't. And again, I don't mind establishing a beachhead on the Mexican side as a landing area, but somehow I don't think Biden has the stomach for it. That would really be an extreme measure but perhaps necessary to force Mexico to control its own borders. Over time, the dimensions of the problem declines as word spreads that the gravy train is over, but only if we show we really mean it.

I am fine with that but Mexico probably isn't.

We recently got Mexico to work on stopping people from crossing over from Guatemala.

And again, I don't mind establishing a beachhead on the Mexican side as a landing area, but somehow I don't think Biden has the stomach for it.

Not sure what you mean. Look at how they handled it under Title 42. Biden used that. Don't recall a beachhead in Mexico. Could be wrong though

That would really be an extreme measure but perhaps necessary to force Mexico to control its own borders. Over time, the dimensions of the problem declines as word spreads that the gravy train is over, but only if we show we really mean it.

Thought y'all liked extreme? 😜

Look, if you want to get the border under control, spend money wisely, and some of it is going to look extreme.

"Oh, I am for the bill for several reasons, one of which is that Trump will wield the authority in a way I think serves the country better than Biden."

LOL. Biden tries to be effective at the border. Trump just tried to be cruel at the border to feed his bloodthirsty cult. The fact that you think one was more effective than the other says a lot about you as a person.

"However, I am asking a very real world question, when the border is closed, what does that look like, do migrants pile ever deeper on the Mexican side, if not, why not?
"

I know that as a user of poor information sources you are ill informed, but as an answer to your question, why not look to the recent past when Biden actually shut down the border. I would link to examples but you would not believe me. It is easy to find if you really care. If you are just looking to reinforce your ignorant view, then nevermind.

"Piling up on the Mexican side may not be acceptable to Mexico, why would it? Then what?"

That is sort of the point. Mexico didn't like it when we shut down the border, it was important to them to keep it open (their economy pretty much relies on it). So when the border was shut down, they started acting more responsibly. It is important to Mexico that their goods are able to easily enter the U.S., so they will do whatever it takes to continue that, including stopping people before they ever get to our border.

<i?"So. We were right about the bill.
It's DOA in the House, as it should be."

No, you weren't right. As usual.

It is telling though that you prefer the status quo so you can continue to whine than any actual improvement on border and immigration security that would help the counry.

So. We were right about the bill.
It's DOA in the House, as it should be.

I remember when you came out here whining and sniveling that we were trying to take away Trump's best issue. Disgusting to see a grown man write like that.

Who tells the advancing caravans to halt for seven days

The Mexican government is responsible for activity on their side of la linea.

and will they comply?

Will who comply; the Mexican government or the caravans? These caravans cannot be the new norm.

Either way, since the Ports of Entry will still be fulfilling it's traditional functions, it would theoretically still be business as usual.

I'd recommend one more line item to the bill: Free birth control for all and full funding for Planned Parenthood with free abortion.

The problem is overpopulation. We knew 50 years ago these massive migrations from ignorant and ignorant/religious countries would happen. Preaching 'just say no' 'keep your legs together ladies' is naive, dismissive of reality, disrespectful of women.

Huh?
Personal attacks. Where people who are wrong on issues go to hide.

https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1754295521...

And there’s the provision.

Sorry, this bill is DOA in the House.

And just to further rub your nub in this pile of sh1t: remember the crowing form you people about how this bill MANDATES a closed border?

It does no such thing.

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1754304841...

Say it with me. Dope was right.

"Required" is a word that only has meaning when there is an entity who will, automatically and without fail, enforce it. What happens if Mayorkas doesn't dive into this with the gusto we are supposed to assume will be there?

I marvel that you pretend you don't realize he's already done it under Title 42. What can you say to a person who 1. doesn't understand the law, 2. That he's required to follow the law and has, 3. The only people defying the law are MAGAs in the form of Abbott, and 4. that he's already done this, so there's no reason - except partisan politics - to doubt he/they would do it.

So basically, you're whole exercise is partisan politics and most likely not something you really believe.

Dope1: Where people who are wrong on issues go to hide.

https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky...

Question: Who's stupider, Ryan Girdusky -- who pastes Senate bill language that clearly states that "MANDATORY ACTIVATION" is triggered when "during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day," thereby closing the border and then uses that border closure language to bizarrely claim that the border is, rather, open and that 5,000 crossers will keep entering the U.S. every day -- or the idiot who believes Ryan Girdusky?

No new asylum claims will be allowed while the border is closed and anybody crossing will be removed, effectively giving republicans exactly what they've been demanding: an end to the whole idea of "I made it to U.S. soil, you have to process me."

Sorry, Ryan is an idiot but sure, keep getting your "news" from random strangers on X.

I marvel that you pretend you don't realize he's already done it under Title 42. What can you say to a person who 1. doesn't understand the law, 2. That he's required to follow the law and has, 3. The only people defying the law are MAGAs in the form of Abbott, and 4. that he's already done this, so there's no reason - except partisan politics - to doubt he/they would do it.

So basically, you're whole exercise is partisan politics and most likely not something you really believe.

No. You've been shown the bill now.
Biden is free to ignore the law if he deems that "it's in the national interest".

We were right. You people were wrong. Fling all the insults you want, but:

We were right. You were wrong.

Have some integrity and admit that. Or, don't.

Dope1: Say it with me. Dope was right.

Dude, you are as wrong as wrong can be.

So basically, you're whole exercise is partisan politics and most likely not something you really believe.

No. You've been shown the bill now.
Biden is free to ignore the law if he deems that "it's in the national interest".

As I've said b4 the only people ignoring the law are Abbott, and since you approve of ignoring the law - YOU. And you are a challenged partisan hack.

Let's see-
"The nearly 400-page package also includes sweeping bipartisan immigration legislation that would:

#Raise the bar for migrants claiming asylum. ME: GOOD
#Clarify the White House’s use of parole authority to temporarily grant protections to migrants. ME: GOOD
#Create a procedure to shut down the border at particularly active times. GOOD
#End the practice of allowing migrants to live in the United States while they wait for their cases to be heard by an immigration judge." GOOD.

Well this is excellent so far but I realize it's 400 pages. Cue the machine learning to analyze the border. Nah, it'll take a little time to wrk through, but here's a 19 page summary. https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/do...

"The bill makes changes to credible fear of persecution standards for asylum and for the expedited removal of those asylum seekers who don’t qualify. There would be $3.99 billion provided for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to hire 4,338 asylum officers." GOOD

"The package includes $20.23 billion to “address existing operational needs and expand capabilities at our nation’s borders, resource the new border policies included in the package, and help stop the flow of fentanyl and other narcotics,” according to a summary from Murray’s office" GOOD

"The legislation would prohibit additional U.S. funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, following allegations from Israel that several of its staffers participated in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

The Biden administration has paused funding for UNRWA while the investigation is ongoing, but many, including McConnell have called for a full cutoff in U.S. aid" GOOD

"The legislation would give the secretary of Homeland Security the option to shut down the border if, during a period of seven consecutive days, more than 4,000 encounters are recorded with migrants. " DOUBLE GOOD

"If that number reaches 5,000 encounters for a period of seven consecutive days, the U.S. would be required to shut down the border." DOUBLE SECRET GOOD

Sinema said during a Sunday morning interview on the CBS show “Face the Nation” that the proposed policy would be a “powerful tool.”

That tool would be known as a border emergency authority and is temporary and would sunset within three years, according to the bill text. Some exceptions to that authority include unaccompanied minors and victims of human trafficking.

“The reason we’re doing that is because we want to be able to shut down the system when it gets overloaded, so we have enough time to process those asylum claims,” Sinema said." GRADE A GOOD

"Sinema said during a Sunday morning interview on the CBS show “Face the Nation” that the proposed policy would be a “powerful tool.”

That tool would be known as a border emergency authority and is temporary and would sunset within three years, according to the bill text. Some exceptions to that authority include unaccompanied minors and victims of human trafficking.

“The reason we’re doing that is because we want to be able to shut down the system when it gets overloaded, so we have enough time to process those asylum claims,” Sinema said." EXCELLENT GOOD <-- I WILL EXPLAIN IN ITALICS

The average over two weeks of 5000 is met every day now, so it could go into immediate effect. We send people back across the border. If during the two weeks afterwards, there are over 5000 encounters a day average the threshold is met, the border remains shut down, so you have a continuous rolling forward average. It is possible that the border remains shut indefinitely unless the border crossers get organized. If we have 5001 border crossers (assuming no exceptions) that are expelled and return and cross the next day, those are all new encounters and the shut down remains in effect. So it is possible for the same 5001 border crossers to keep the border shut down.

Cue the accusations that lack substance and bogus claims they were right without stating what they were right about and why.

https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/04/details-of...

As I've said b4 the only people ignoring the law are Abbott, and since you approve of ignoring the law - YOU. And you are a challenged partisan hack.

You didn't look at the Supreme Court's decision closely enough. It said Biden could remove the wire; it didn't say Abbott had to stop laying it.

And which one of us is arguing for removing security barriers at the border? You are.

Still on personal attacks. Let me summarize: You lose. Anyone who needs to go there is doing so because they can't argue their way out of a paper bag. So sorry for you.

Cue the accusations that lack substance and bogus claims they were right without stating what they were right about and why.


Lulz. I pointed you to the actual bill text.
Again, learn to argue, and pick news sources that tell you the truth. Clearly the ones that you follow don't.

Toodles!

Dope1: Let me summarize: You lose. ... Lulz. I pointed you to the actual bill text.

The Black Knight declares victory. How Dope1. Just like the Motley Fool days.

Republicans demanded a border bill. President Biden and a team of senators called your bluff and now you're desperately making up sh!t in an attempt to kill the very provisions that Orange Jesus and his disciples were demanding.

And you didn't give us "the actual bill text" but rather a snippet of it along with State Freedom Caucuses' Greg Price and Ryan Girdusky's lies about it on X.

That's some expert analysis ya' got there.

Abbott is violating the current law. SCOTUS only rules on constitutionality, so all they can say is that the feds can remove the wire constitutionally. But Abbott is preventing BP agents from accessing people on US soil so that they can submit asylum claims. That is illegal. He should be tossed in federal prison.

Ironically, the new bill would make it legal with the 5000 person trigger, or rather, it would put the onus on the feds to do it. There is no "amnesty trojan horse" or any other such nonsense.

And you didn't point anyone to "actual bill text". You linked a moronic X post from a partisan moron. Numerous summaries are available, as well as the actual text (if you want to wade through it....I don't). But, please, feel free to point us to the actual text (not some X post) that gives a POTUS the ability to ignore the law. I would be genuinely interested. I'm sure if it were there you would be hearing the chunks for relevant text read aloud on FOX News already.

It gives Reps most of what they want. Certainly more than they will get if they wait until after Biden leaves office in 5 years, because they won't have Ukraine funding as leverage. So far, from what I've read, I'm OK with the bill. It's not exactly how I would have liked it, but I'm willing to compromise. But, hey, if you can live with the status quo (which apparently you can), I suspect I live with it better than you. And I'm in a border state.**

So, yeah, give Trump his campaign issue. Reps are like the dog chasing a car. You've actually caught it, and now you don't want it.



**Well, technically you are also. But I don't hear much commotion from the northern border.

Abbott is violating the current law. SCOTUS only rules on constitutionality, so all they can say is that the feds can remove the wire constitutionally. But Abbott is preventing BP agents from accessing people on US soil so that they can submit asylum claims. That is illegal. He should be tossed in federal prison. - 1pg

There are two misconceptions embedded in you statement.

First, the wire. Under the SCOTUS ruling, as you say, BP is allowed to remove it, Texas is allowed to put it up. So under those terms, Abbott and the BP have agreed that 1) BP has no intention of wholesale removal and 2) BP can cut the wire as necessary to conduct rescue operations.

Now as far as Shelby Park is concerned, there is a dispute over whether this is federal land or state land. The Biden admin says there is some prior agreement or easement or something, and Texas says prove it and so far the feds haven't. You may not realize the extent the Feds had taken over that park. It was a full scale processing center, multiple big tents, hundred of personnel, high fencing around some of it, lots of vehicles coming and going at all hours. None of that is necessary now that Abbott's border wall has reduced and average of thousands a day crossing into Shelby Park to three (three, not a typo).

It is not obvious to me anyway that a crime is being committed.

You didn't look at the Supreme Court's decision closely enough

Yes, I did. I'm looking at the one before, where they had to move the buoys because the river is an international waterway. The navigable part of the river includes up to the bank, and the river raises and lowers. This raising and lowering causes a zone on the bank that would be part of an area where they can't put razor wire, if it follows the normal law and IIRC. If it were me and the razor wire was placed 10 feet back form the high water mark, I would have no problem with it unless in practice that was too hazardous for some unforeseen reason.

If you place the razor wire at the high water mark, you create a foreseeable hazard for the illegal/asylee. If you go to the edge at the low ebb, it's a hazard. If you extend into the water at low ebb, you are an inhuman bastard just killing people.

Abbott is violating the current law. SCOTUS only rules on constitutionality, so all they can say is that the feds can remove the wire constitutionally. But Abbott is preventing BP agents from accessing people on US soil so that they can submit asylum claims. That is illegal. He should be tossed in federal prison.

Biden's the one not defending the southern border; at best what Abbott is doing is civil disobedience.

Ironically, the new bill would make it legal with the 5000 person trigger, or rather, it would put the onus on the feds to do it. There is no "amnesty trojan horse" or any other such nonsense.

and

And you didn't point anyone to "actual bill text". You linked a moronic X post from a partisan moron.

Tell me you didn't look at the link without telling me you didn't look at the link.

You guys are sooooo easy to trip up with your abject refusal to read anything that's not an approved liberal source. Had you bothered to look at the link, you would have seen...the actual text of the bill. Saying exactly what I said it would say.

Whoops. And this statement that gives a POTUS the ability to ignore the law highlights a lack of knowledge as to what's actually in the bill. I'll summarize: Biden is NOT REQUIRED BY THE LAW TO LOCK ANYTHING DOWN.

He can look at the flood of illegals across the border and declare it in the national interest to not close it off. That's what's in the law.

You know what else is in the law? Auto work permits for every illegal that comes in. Oh, and the whole thing sunsets in 3 years.

Don't tell me that this sh1t sandwich has things Republicans want. You might have buried a nice beef patty in there somewhere, but it's still encased in a bunch of sh1t.

It is not obvious to me anyway that a crime is being committed.

As I understand it, once they arrive on US soil, under current law they have a right to request an asylum hearing. By interfering with that, Abbott is violating their rights. Perhaps albaby can correct me if I'm wrong, but violating a person's rights is illegal and actionable.

I wasn't commenting on the status of Shelby Park. I don't know the history or legalities, and have no opinion presently.

As I understand it, once they arrive on US soil, under current law they have a right to request an asylum hearing. By interfering with that, Abbott is violating their rights. Perhaps albaby can correct me if I'm wrong, but violating a person's rights is illegal and actionable.

Uh. huh. According to your interpretation of the law then ALL the border fence is illegal and must come down. Try again.

No, I didn't look at the link. I will not click on a "twitter" link. Or a FB link. I have stated that in the past. Link me to an actual article, not a social media post, and I'll look at it. Or, better still, link to the page of the bill that says what you're claiming.

But I will give you ONE thing. The authority (NOT the bill) sunsets in 3 years. I had missed that point.

It does not appear to grant "auto work permits", but rather states that asylum-seekers are eligible to apply while awaiting their hearings.

And no one has said (that I'm aware of) that anyone is required to lock anything down. But the option exists in the bill, which under current law it DOES NOT. As BHM has said, it gives the executive another lever to pull. It also tightens requirements, gives more funding to BP, and to immigration courts, and some other stuff.

So, yes, I WILL tell you it has a lot of things Republicans want. A lot. It may not have things YOU want. But a lot of Republicans are supportive of it, and a lot of Republicans were in the room hammering out the details when it was being created. So, yes, it was stuff Republicans want (and have wanted for years). It just doesn't give everything they want.

Again, I can live with the status quo better than you can. I hardly think about it unless it comes up in conversation. It's doesn't break into my top 5 concerns. But it (i.e. status quo) clearly pisses you off to no end. And you'll have to live with it for another generation or more. Even skeptical BHM concedes that it's a start from a Republican perspective.

I'll continue to loosely follow it. But MAGA is almost certain to kill it, so it's likely academic, plus I have other things to worry about.

Perhaps albaby can correct me if I'm wrong, but violating a person's rights is illegal and actionable. - 1pg

------------------

If that were true in this set of circumstances, then it seems that SCOTUS would have ordered Texas to stop putting up its barrier. I dunno, the law is inscrutable much of the time.

I will not click on a "twitter" link. Or a FB link. I have stated that in the past. Link me to an actual article, not a social media post, and I'll look at it. Or, better still, link to the page of the bill that says what you're claiming.


Your loss. I'm not going to do the heavy lifting of sifting through every bill if somebody else has already taken a screenshot of the actual text.

So, yes, I WILL tell you it has a lot of things Republicans want. A lot.

If you mean the Chamber of Commerce, sure. But a lot of Republicans don't recognize them as being on The Team anymore.

This bill essentially codifies in a load of illegal immigrants. Essentially...legalizing them. And it only spends $20B out of north of $100B on "the border".

It's DOA in the House.

But it (i.e. status quo) clearly pisses you off to no end. And you'll have to live with it for another generation or more. Even skeptical BHM concedes that it's a start from a Republican perspective.

Maybe. Maybe not. But this attempt by the democrats with some help from GOPe to take the border off the table for November will fail.

Oh, here's one more social media link for you: It's from Senator Chris Murphy, who wrote a bunch of the bill. Maybe you'll accept his words at face value.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/175429230...

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/175429230...
3/ A quicker, fairer asylum process. No more 10 yr wait. Claims processed in a non-detained, non-adversarial way in 6 months.

A slightly higher asylum screening standard at the border.

Also, no more waiting for work permits. Most asylum seekers can work immediately.

Since everyone pretty much gets asylum these days, there's your auto work permits.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/175429230...

4/ A brand new right to legal representation for all immigrants. Remember when Trump denied lawyers to victims of the Muslim ban? Never again.

And...the first ever government paid-for lawyers for young unaccompanied minors. A long standing injustice righted.

Get denied at your asylum hearing because you're on a terror watch list? Now you get a US taxpayer funded lawyer to help you beat the rap!

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/175429230...

6/ But...important checks on that power. It can only be used for a limited number of days per year. It sunsets in 3 years. Emergency cases that show up in between the ports still need to be accepted. The ports must process a minimum of 1400 claims a day.

Get that? Even if the encounters hits 5,000 the border isn't really closed: they're just supposed to go to a port of entry.

You guys can chant all you want about how the bill "has things that Republicans like". Sure, it does. Like maybe the font or paragraph spacing. But as a matter of policy, it's terrible.

I'll continue to loosely follow it. But MAGA is almost certain to kill it, so it's likely academic, plus I have other things to worry about. - 1pg

--------------

Unfortunately, I think you are right. But I still like the debate, it helps, I think.

Not at all. If the border fence is on the border, legal. If it's on US territory, probably not legal (or at least not in many circumstances). Again, albaby can correct me if I'm wrong. But once they are on US soil, current law grants them the right to request asylum. So if the fence prevents them from entering US soil, legal. But once on US soil, fencing would be illegal (except for private property, of course).

Again, SCOTUS only rules on constitutionality. Actually, albaby taught me that several years ago. There is (apparently) nothing constitutional to stop him. But he is violating a federal right granted by federal law, which would fall under the purview of a federal court. Maybe one of the Circuit courts? Not quite sure how those are organized.

"Everyone gets asylum these days"?? Albaby already detailed that about 40% of hearings result in asylum. The other 60% get sent home. And that's only the asylees that make it to a hearing...many are screened and declared ineligible on the first interview (I forgot the percentage now). So, no...no automatic work permits. Not even close. Work permits are preferable to supporting people with "welfare" while they await their hearings. Costs taxpayers a lot less.

Yes, I knew about the port of entry provision. It's still better control than what we have now.

No, I'm not going to click on a twitter link. I don't care if it's Hannity or Biden. No difference to me. Social media is not refereed or moderated in any way. It's a shit-show. Journalist reporting is the gold standard because -if they do their jobs- they report what -for example- Biden says, and then tell us what he got right and what he got wrong.

And, no, I'm not going to do the heavy lifting to prove every crackpot statement from twitter is wrong. You have to prove it is correct. Just like I can't prove there is no teapot orbiting Saturn right now. And I don't need to. The person making that assertion needs to prove there is one. If you want to prove a twitter link, by all means...link a relevant article or the actual page of text from the bill, and we can talk. I'm not going to go chasing teapots.

Democrats are mostly focused on the Ukraine funding and stopping Putin (something the GOP of old would have been clamoring for, say in Reagan's day). So they are giving a lot that they don't want to do to get it. You watch next year, if this comes up, Dems won't be willing to give up anything because you won't have anything they want. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get some provisions Reps have been wanting for a decade or more. But I do agree with you that it is dead because Trump wants his campaign issue.

Whoops. And this statement that gives a POTUS the ability to ignore the law highlights a lack of knowledge as to what's actually in the bill. I'll summarize: Biden is NOT REQUIRED BY THE LAW TO LOCK ANYTHING DOWN.

I think he'll delegate that with direction to do what the law requires, and I think it's a nothing point because Biden has followed Title 42. So he does send people back across the border. Your point is mindlessly partisan. This is a great F*in bill and you know it.

Dope1: Say it with me. Dope was right.

Gladly! Should that day ever come.

"Everyone gets asylum these days"?? Albaby already detailed that about 40% of hearings result in asylum. The other 60% get sent home.

Do they? When hearings are several years out, is that a provable statement?

So, no...no automatic work permits. Not even close.

Hmm. Do you at least agree that a lax "expedited" amnesty process would lead to an increase in work permits?

No, I'm not going to click on a twitter link. I don't care if it's Hannity or Biden. No difference to me. Social media is not refereed or moderated in any way. It's a shit-show. Journalist reporting is the gold standard because -if they do their jobs- they report what -for example- Biden says, and then tell us what he got right and what he got wrong.

Yeah...that's worked so well for the field of journalism. Paragons of virtue, honesty and down-the-middle political views they are.

And, no, I'm not going to do the heavy lifting to prove every crackpot statement from twitter is wrong. You have to prove it is correct.

The X posts I cited contained shots of the actual bill. Doesn't get any better than that. PS. Most of the time when I cite an X post...it's from a journalist.

Thanks for confirming that most people don't even look at the links.

Democrats are mostly focused on the Ukraine funding and stopping Putin (something the GOP of old would have been clamoring for, say in Reagan's day).

LOL. The trope of "the GOP loves Russia" is tired. Please don't try that.
What the GOP objects to is
1) Sending all our ammo over to fight Putin, who can't project power more than 30 miles from his border
2) Giving them a blank check

You watch next year, if this comes up, Dems won't be willing to give up anything because you won't have anything they want.

I expect NOTHING from the democrats. As a party, they're completely unserious about border security for their own craven reasons. Always have been, always will be. There will be no border deal under Trump because why would the democrats actually care about something as trivial as national security?

So I'm not willing to eat this sh1t sandwich because next year the dems will have no motivation. A party that had America's interests in mind wouldn't need to be motivated by bad polling, but that's who the d's are.

I think he'll delegate that with direction to do what the law requires,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Right. 1pg has some oceanview property for you to buy down there in Arizona.

Your point is mindlessly partisan.

I've given you the accurate facts on the bill. Because they don't align with your fantasies you're lashing out.

That's a 'you' issue, not a 'me' one.

Well this is excellent so far but I realize it's 400 pages. Cue the machine learning to analyze the border. Nah, it'll take a little time to wrk through, but here's a 19 page summary. https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/do...

===============================

Lapsody, thanks for the link to that summary, lots there, I was specifically looking for this rumored sunset after three years provision. I could not find it explicitly, but did find this on Page 13

• Provides that the authority shall not be activated for more than 270 days in the first
calendar year, 225 days in the second calendar year, and 180 days in the third calendar year.


This caps the use of border shutdown authority in year 1, lowers the cap in year 2, lowers it further in year 3. No mention of what happens in year 4? Maybe some undiscovered cause does say there is not a year 4.

More from the border bill summary. Does this mean all the personnel hired under this authority must be let go after five years?

Page 7

Sec. 3101. USCIS direct hire authority.
• Provides flexibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to hire additional personnel to process asylum claims by authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to directly appoint, following public notice and consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, candidates for certain positions within the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate, the Field Operations Directorate, or the Services Center Operations Directorate of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This authority will sunset five years after enactment.

The ports must process a minimum of 1400 claims a day.

Get that? Even if the encounters hits 5,000 the border isn't really closed: they're just supposed to go to a port of entry.

I covered that some time back. But 1400 a day is much better than 6,000 a day, and the tightened asylum requirements will probably be partly reflected in the initial screening. So let's say of that 1400, 20% get through, or 280. 280 x 365 = 102,200, So that's the base - 102k asylees if the border is shut down all year. Sunset in three years.

This sunset looks different than other sunsets, say the assault weapons ban, doesn't it? Neither Dem nor Repub like the way it is now. If the bill is passed and it is working 3 years from now, it will be made permanent, or adjustments will be made to suit both parties.

One thing you have to get through your skull Dope, is that a representative democracy requires compromise. It isn't all about one party, it's about America.

Taking this in reverse order:
One thing you have to get through your skull Dope, is that a representative democracy requires compromise. It isn't all about one party, it's about America.

Nobody ever said "I get everything I want".

*You* get *this* through *your* skull: This bill doesn't do anything to fix the border. If anything, the extra green cards and work authorizations add to the incentive pile for illegals to come here.

You people seem to think that just because the democrats suddenly want to pass something for partisan political reasons - and don't try and fight me on this, that's the only reason any of you are talking about this - that we should pass it. Just to pass something.

That's a silly reason to pass legislation. Laws should be passed because they make things better. All JB has to do in the current situation to make things better is...his job.

That's another thing you can get through your skull.

Dope1: Get denied at your asylum hearing because you're on a terror watch list? Now you get a US taxpayer funded lawyer to help you beat the rap!

No, learn to read better. The legislation says:

Sec. 3514. Conforming amendment
• Amends Sec. 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that any individual subject to a removal proceeding before an immigration judge and a subsequent appeal proceeding has the ability to access authorized legal counsel.

The representation is only accessible, it is not paid for by the federal government.

The only individuals who get taxpayer funded representation are children and the incompetent:

Also from Sec. 3514. Conforming amendment (same paragraph):
Clarifies that the federal government shall provide, at government expense, counsel for certain unaccompanied alien children and, subject to appropriations, individuals found incompetent to represent themselves.

Or do believe an eleven-year-old should be expected to represent herself at a hearing?

BMH: Lapsody, thanks for the link to that summary, lots there, I was specifically looking for this rumored sunset after three years provision. I could not find it explicitly, but did find this on Page 13

• Provides that the authority shall not be activated for more than 270 days in the first
calendar year, 225 days in the second calendar year, and 180 days in the third calendar year.


This caps the use of border shutdown authority in year 1, lowers the cap in year 2, lowers it further in year 3. No mention of what happens in year 4? Maybe some undiscovered cause does say there is not a year 4.

Yah, I don't get that. That goes contrary to things I've read that it could be closed all year theoretically. The reducing cap changes my mind about a potential sunset. I'm going to have to look at that. Thanks for pointing that out :)

I did find this in a Whitehouse fact sheet:

Provides Temporary Emergency Authority for the President to Shut Down the Border When the System is Overwhelmed

Establishes a new temporary authority, the “Border Emergency Authority,” that allows the President and Secretary of Homeland Security to temporarily prohibit individuals from seeking asylum, with limited exceptions, when the Southwest Border is overwhelmed. The authority preserves access to other protections, consistent with our international obligations, and will sunset after three years.

Importantly, this authority is to be used when the number of migrants encountered at the border reaches very high levels – levels that strain the U.S. government’s ability to process migrants. Additionally, the authority is limited to a set number of days each calendar year – in the third year of implementation the authority may only be exercised for half of a given calendar year.

The United States is a country of refuge for those fleeing persecution. For that reason, the legislation requires asylum access be preserved for a minimum number of individuals per day, limited to those using a safe and orderly process at ports of entry, when the authority is invoked.

So it looks like the authority gets sunsetted out. So we'd have to hope for a bipartisan effort for it to remain if we still have a problem, and I think we will still have a problem. I think if it's working, you can count on enough bipartisan support.

Nobody ever said "I get everything I want".

*You* get *this* through *your* skull: This bill doesn't do anything to fix the border.

OOhhh NO Dope. I remember you coming out here whining that they were taking Trumps best campaign issue away. Whining and sniveling about it. So any hand you play, plays to that. It very well DOES HELP FIX THE BORDER. Any yahoo can see that.

I've just got to get used to it, now that it's out.

I remember you coming out here whining that they were taking Trumps best campaign issue away.

You're misremembering. That's a you thing.

t very well DOES HELP FIX THE BORDER.

LOL. No it doesn't, as I've shown. Repeatedly.

Reality served you up again and you're having difficulty processing that fact.

Good luck!

So it looks like the authority gets sunsetted out. So we'd have to hope for a bipartisan effort for it to remain if we still have a problem, and I think we will still have a problem. I think if it's working, you can count on enough bipartisan support. - Lapsody

-------------

Lets look at the math of a closed border

The compassionate sounding minimum is 1,400 / day or 511,000 per year.... But that minimum only applies when the mislabeled shutdown is in effect. There will be even more migrants on non shut down days. Non shutdown days are by law 25% of the days in year 1, and rise to half the days in year 3.

As long as there is a steady supply, it seems we will average that 5,000 every day except for brief periods of freeze where the daily average will be 1,400. The 5,000 equates to 1,825,000 per year, the 1,400 equates to 511,000, so the estimated actual will be between these two, lets say is 1,500,000 per year. Add to that the families and minors traveling alone who can't be detained, plus anyone caught coming in between POE's must be given an interview if they claim emergency. This loophole harks back to Dopes point about the illegals being coached about what to say.

Add all these factors up and it appears that this border security bill will enshrine into law at least 1,500,000 per year even with a cooperative DHS secretary who declares lots of shutdowns. And 1.5M is guaranteed to go up when the DHS secretary loses his shut down authority after three years. On top of this, are 250,000 more visas, special programs for afghans, and we are looking at around a 2,000,000 minimum.

Toss in guarantees for chain migration, lack of earlier rumored provisions clamping down on visa overstays, and the BIG ONE - this whole thing expires in three year, which will be almost impossible to extend due to the 60 vote rule in the Senate.

Odd little clause on page 6
Requires the Department of Homeland Security to ensure alternative and cost-benefit analyses are conducted prior to requesting assistance for border operations from the Department of Defense.

Another on page 14
Provides that individuals granted conditional permanent resident status and their child or spouse who is the beneficiary of an immigrant petition under Sec. 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act are exempt from numerical limitations under Sec. 201, 202, and 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

Page 6 - could this mean that no wall construction will be allowed
Provides a breakout of the type of border security technology that may be acquired with the funds provided in this Act and includes other requirements for those funds....

Rescinds and reappropriates remaining border barrier balances for the same purpose with
additional specifications on type of barrier.

It is becoming harder and harder to support this bill now that the details are becoming available. I suppose some revisions to the bill could still happen, there needs to be. And there are likely other provisions and consequences, good or bad, that have not been exposed yet.

It very well DOES HELP FIX THE BORDER. Any yahoo can see that. - Lapsody

--------------

So why would it have a three year sunset? This tickles my skepticism bone.

I remember you coming out here whining that they were taking Trumps best campaign issue away.

You're misremembering. That's a you thing.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. You most certainly did come out here and whine. It was disgusting.

It very well DOES HELP FIX THE BORDER.

LOL. No it doesn't, as I've shown. Repeatedly.

Denial again. You have NEVER SHOWN ANYTHING

Coming out here and making statements that this does not fix the border doesn't prove or show anything. And that's all you seem to do, so you do not understand what constitutes proof.

We have seen the reduction in asylees released at the border under Title 42, therefore Title 42 works. What does Title 42 allow?
It allows expulsion of border crossers without processing, so we can do it quickly.
This bill allows expulsion when certain threshold levels of crossing arise, increases the level of processing ability so that instead of 6-7 year wait, it will be 6 months, etc.

What have you shown? That "they are taking away Trump's best campaign issue" and mere statements it doesn't work. Any grade school kid knows this isn't proof, you haven't shown anything, and are an idiot.

You keeping on repeating something doesn’t make it true.
After a while it sounds more like a chant or a catechism you’re saying to yourself. Go for it, baby!

You have NEVER SHOWN ANYTHIN
Who’s in denial? You are. Your golden bill turned out to be a bad thing, just as I said. Take the L.

LOL. No it doesn't, as I've shown. Repeatedly.

Nah.. All you've shown, ad nauseum, is that you have perfected projecting your pathetically partisan senile citizen angst. Repeatedly.

"it very well DOES HELP FIX THE BORDER. - Lapsody

"LOL. No it doesn't, as I've shown. Repeatedly." - Dope1

Ok Dope, I will entertain your foolishness.

Where exactly have you shown that the bill doesn't help fix the border?

Certainly not here on this website. The only two things you have done on this website is to (1) make declarations of your opinion that is worth exactly what everyone has paid for it ($0 at most, likely negative given your comprehension problems), and (2) link to other people's opinions where they misrepresent what is in the bill.

None of that demonstrates anything other than you have the ability to type an opinion and you use sources of information that make you look foolish by taking advantage of your comprehension problems.

It very well DOES HELP FIX THE BORDER.

LOL. No it doesn't, as I've shown. Repeatedly.

Trump said JUMP and MAGAs just ask 'how high?' Don't think, just follow orders.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.