Post New

But I don't think the Dems have the working class vote locked-up like they used to. On the other hand, Trump isn't a normal Republican. He's MAGA. That's a turn-off for a LOT of people, especially the independents (who decide most elections).

Rank and file union members think differently from the Union bosses. They are all for the Union bosses when fighting for wages and benefits, not so much for dem politicians in today’s world, scraping from paycheck to paycheck.

Yes, Trump is MAGA, MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Trump followers are proud to be called MAGA, because they know what it stands for
whereas libs and dems think it is a bad word. The joke is on libs and dems.

It has become a bad "word" (actually, acronym). Because of the Trumpies. Yes, it is a joke. First, it presupposes that America was "great" in the past, but now isn't. If anything, I would say the reverse is true.

Since WWII (where, arguably, we were "great"), we have meddled in affairs that installed dictators (Pinochet and the Shah both come to mind), propped-up puppets (like the RVN), and generally been real a-holes. But not so much for the past 30 years or so. Except Iraq. Yeah, Saddam has horrible, but he didn't have WMD, and we created ISIS by invading him. Not a great triumph.

But we arguably are "greater" now than we were 30 years ago when we were supporting dictators and meddling in the internal affairs of others. Our economy is better, more jobs, better jobs, healthcare is accessible to more people...etc.

Trump's idea of "great" is building a wall, banning Muslims, and demonizing anyone in the press that dares criticize him. Oh...and subverting democracy so he can sit at the big desk.

Trump's idea of "great" is building a wall, banning Muslims, and demonizing anyone in the press that dares criticize him. Oh...and subverting democracy so he can sit at the big desk.

Trump’s Travel Ban was upheld by Supreme Court. End of story.
I’ll bet dollars to donuts the American people are wishing for a border wall considering the
vermin coming into America. Illegals are even coming from China and Russia. Why is that?

They aren't illegal if they are requesting asylum, which most are.

Russia and China? There was a surge of Russian asylum-seekers after Putin invaded Ukraine. They were afraid they were going to get drafted. In fact, I think some of them had been but ran instead. So, yeah...I would have expected a lot of Russians over the past couple of years.

And do you have to ask about the Chinese? Their society is horrible about human rights. So I'm sure many try to request asylum. Whether it's granted in a different question. Most asylum-seekers either don't pass the initial interview, and don't win in court.

The wall was a stupid idea. In most places along the border you can't actually build the wall on the border. For example, the Rio Grande (can't build it in the middle of a river). And if you build it on our side, then the asylum-seekers are in US territory if they get to the wall, and have the legal right to request asylum. So it's utterly pointless.

You have to change the law, which the Lankford group was trying to do, but Trump shot that down before anyone knew any details. It's questionable whether the restrictions that have since come out would have been in accord with treaties about refugees, as albaby explained in detail. But it's moot since the law isn't going to change, and so an unlimited number of asylum seekers will have to be processed. There is no legal way to stop them.

Illegals are even coming from China

Asylees are coming from China. It's on Social Media in China - so they go to Ecuador, through the Darien Gap, and through Central America. His story? His family lived in rural China, he went to nearby city, worked, leased land and buil a 100 unit apt bldg. He was making 36k a year on the building (middle class). The local party decided they wanted the land back. He sued and won, which enraged the local party bosses and the beating began (I think local police), he divorced his wife with both hoping the would stop beating her. He saw the add on social media, and...

Another fellow had a Bible on the front seat during a police stop, they harassed and beat him. He had 5 people over for worship, they raided, beat and jailed everyone, he got out, the beatings and surveillance continued. He saw the add, and brought his daughter too.

They aren't illegal if they are requesting asylum, which most are.

They are illegals. They have been schooled to say they are requesting asylum for a free pass.

There is no legal way to stop them.

And whose fault is that the illegals are coming in by the millions since OldJoe took office?

They are not illegals. If you like, you can go back to the schooling that albaby gave everyone in January, and continuing to this month. Mike (BHM) says he "cringes" now when he hears them referred to as illegals because he now knows better.

The "they have been schooled" angle was also thoroughly trounced. It isn't happening. Most asylum-seekers don't even get past the first interview, and 60% who get a court date don't pass either. But the 40% who do indicate that a very large number of people come here with claims that hold up in court, even without counsel (few, if any, have legal counsel and have to represent themselves). Under current law, we are obligated to give every one of them a chance to make their case.

And they were coming by the millions before Joe took office. They were coming in droves under Trump until COVID hit. COVID reduced it to a trickle. Once COVID restrictions were lifted, the torrent continued. Again, we have been all over this. I only repeat it here because you had better things to do than read a message board for the past several weeks, and I totally understand that priority. When 1poorlady was sick, I didn't spend much time on the boards (TMF) either. You can either take my word for it, that my summary is accurate, or go dig up the threads and read them yourself. Though it's a LOT of reading, it was very enlightening.

Under current law, there is nothing Joe can do. And if he were to win in November, there is nothing Donny can do, either. The Executive cannot do anything. The Legislative has to change the law, and they show no signs of doing it now that the Lankford bill is dead.

And whose fault is that the illegals are coming in by the millions since OldJoe took office?

It's Trumps now since he killed the bill, doncha know? Prior to that it was failure to deal for 20-30 years. It's your favorite deal, that's why you killed it, and Dope told us so.

It's Trumps now since he killed the bill, doncha know?

Trump AND Johnson. Johnson didn't have to cave. I doubt Boehner would have, or even McCarthy. But he did, and the bill didn't even get to be debated. Johnson has no backbone, evidently. Plus, his inexperience really shows. He's only been in the House for a few terms.

They are not illegals. If you like, you can go back to the schooling that albaby gave everyone in January, and continuing to this month. Mike (BHM) says he "cringes" now when he hears them referred to as illegals because he now knows better.

Don’t care what albaby says on the subject, we had a long go around at TMF and his knowledge on the subject was zilch. That is all I will say about it.

The illegals are schooled what to say giving them legal access to our country and it’s freebies.

SNIP
“The number of illegal immigrants in the country has roughly doubled under President Biden. The United States had some 10.2 million illegal immigrants in 2020, and another 10 million have entered during Biden’s presidency. If the 20 million illegal immigrants were all in one state, it would be tied with New York for the fourth most populated state.
And here’s even worse news. If Biden wins a second term in office and there is no serious reform of U.S. immigration and asylum laws — both of which are very real possibilities — we can expect a continuing increase in the rate of immigrants crossing the border illegally.

Besides the 8.5 million encounters, there are those who entered the U.S. illegally with the express intent of avoiding detection. Estimates put that number at 1.7 million “gotaways” over the past three years, which gives us the 10 million estimate.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/4423296-matthews-illeg...

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

There were also links. If you won't take my word for it, go back and read the lengthy discussion between BHM and albaby (and to a lesser degree, myself and others). I've told you the facts, in as brief a summary as I can. It would be repetitive to recount them again if you refuse to accept it, so I won't.

I'm almost certain they're using "illegal immigrants" incorrectly. It is an op-ed piece. There are those who try to avoid detection, but that is not the majority anymore. That's 1980s thinking, when that was the majority. Now they are refugees from all over the world (though mostly Central America and South America) fleeing persecution and death. They want to encounter the Border Patrol so they can request asylum. The latter are completely legal.

Though I will comment that no matter who wins in November, there will not be any serious effort to reform immigration laws. Republicans let that slip through their fingers this month. It is unlikely they'll get another opportunity to shove more restrictive laws down the throats of progressives for another decade or three. Maybe not for the remainder of my life. Voting immigration in November is senseless because no matter who wins, they can't and won't do anything.

Trump AND Johnson. Johnson didn't have to cave. I doubt Boehner would have, or even McCarthy. But he did, and the bill didn't even get to be debated. Johnson has no backbone, evidently. Plus, his inexperience really shows. He's only been in the House for a few terms.

And no doubt Johnson thinks God is guiding him. Silly.

The illegals are schooled what to say giving them legal access to our country and it’s freebies.

Actually, if this were true to a large extent, then the rate of acceptance in the final hearing should be closer to 95%, than 40%. I mean they'd have years to perfect the story, right? The fact that 60% get rejected means to me that there's less of that going on than you think. And if that is going on and 40% acceptance is the result of years of perfecting the story, then think of the acceptance rate if we had passed and funded that bill. Why barely 5% would pass since they're all economic refugees.

And as for gaming the system, isn't that what Trump has done all of his life? If there's a norm to be exploited he wants to exploit it. If there's a lie to be told that he thinks will go over well with the poorly educated, doesn't he tell it? If there's a contractor he can stiff, or a lawsuit he can delay, doesn't he stiff and delay? And you gloss on this by talking "street fighter"?

And you want me to condemn an economic refugee coming north and taking their best shot at a better life? Meanwhile they work hard and send home money? You want me to think they are somehow evil, while Trump is the anointed new King Cyrus? This is your argument?

I'll be dead before the border problem gets solved.

The wall was a stupid idea. In most places along the border .....it's utterly pointless.

...and in those places where there remains a degree of 'wilderness', the walls are devastating to the species whose diminishing range is split.


Just one more example of overpopulation degrading the planet.

LMDon’t care what albaby says on the subject, we had a long go around at TMF and his knowledge on the subject was zilch. That is all I will say about it.

Albaby's knowledge was zilch? I don't recall you ever having as long a go round as we had here, and it was enlightening. Nope, you're still back in the weeds and we can all tell. The made up stuff won't pass when it comes to the border.

Don’t care what albaby says on the subject, we had a long go around at TMF and his knowledge on the subject was zilch.

I don't recall having much of a discussion over at TMF, so you might be thinking of someone else. But it's been a few years.

But asylees are legally allowed to remain in the United States pending the disposition of their asylum claims. They cannot be deported, and their presence in the U.S. is not illegal during that time. That's why the shift in the demographics of those crossing the border has caused so many problems, dating back to the last pre-pandemic year of the Trump Administration. And why Trump couldn't do anything about it. Under the immigration statutes, no matter where they entered (POE or not), and no matter what their immigration status in crossing the border, they may legally remain in the U.S. until their asylum application is finally resolved.

Because we don't have the infrastructure necessary to process the hundreds of thousands of asylum applications that have been filed every year since 2019, the number of people who are pending disposition of their applications - and thus legally present in the U.S. while that's in process - has skyrocketed. The only ways to reduce the numbers in that population are to either: i) beef up the infrastructure to take out the backlog; or ii) amend the statute to change so they could be deported without a hearing. The former is what was in the border bill just shot down by the House GOP; the latter is probably a violation of international human rights law and probably not legal under the U.S. Constitution (there are serious due process issues if you take away someone's current right to a hearing, whether they're a citizen or not).

Albaby's knowledge was zilch? I don't recall you ever having as long a go round as we had here, and it was enlightening. Nope, you're still back in the weeds and we can all tell. The made up stuff won't pass when it comes to the border.

Yes, on the subject we were discussing.

What would you know, you weren’t there at the PA. I never heard of you till now on the Shrewds.
Did you post at TMF?

I don't recall having much of a discussion over at TMF, so you might be thinking of someone else. But it's been a few years

It was years ago now, nothing to do with politics nor the current border situation. I haven’t forgotten, but was quite amazed at your replies and little knowledge on the subject.
End of discussion.

LurkerMom ...was quite amazed at your replies and little knowledge on the subject.

I remember albaby1 as knowledgeable, clear, detailed, able to cite and link to reputable sources, and infinitely patient no matter which knucklehead he was addressing, often repeatedly.

What would you know, you weren’t there at the PA. I never heard of you till now on the Shrewds.
Did you post at TMF?

I posted when I first got on TMF, and then stopped and just read, rarely posting. But I read. When I was in the Philippines, I read, but I posted politics on a FB group that got shut down after Jan 6. I continually read Albaby, New Echota, and one other poster who stopped posting here once the atheist board became the new PA.

In the Philippines we rarely discussed politics because there were too many MAGATs. They would get bonkers, making threats and libelous statements. Too many people filing suits. I tried very much to educate them and let them know they weren't in the USA. the laws were different, and that the truth as a defense could be overcome if you intended to defame. So we had all these bloggers and posters suing each other. It was easy enough not to talk politics.

But we had a front row seat to Philippine politics - it was fascinating and both simple and complex. Duterte got elected and I watched the silence opposition/retribution campaign where he threw a rival newspaper out of its office, disappeared an amnesty grant for a Senator critical of him who had evidently participated in a mutiny, threw Senator De Lima in jail on the basis of imprisoned cons swearing they paid her, tried to shut down a newspaper in contrived ways that made you realize the court system was complicit and cooperating with him.

But expats were afraid to talk about any of this online thinking to do so could get you deported. I dug up the law and the memos, but still too afraid. So we never had any decent discussion on line, they were all off line. My landlord turned out to know quite a bit(ex Government officer).

It's a little frustrating when there are people murdered on the island, pollies and prominent businessman ex past are afraid to talk bout ti, so you need some trusted educated Filipinos who are in the know, and they are the only ones who can talk about it. Everyone else doesn't know or is afraid to talk about it. You can get stupid talk and conspiracy theories from ex pats, but no intelligent talk.

After I left, the Pamplona massacre happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamplona_massacre

And all that time I read TMF for investment, for politics, and for the jokes. Does anyone know where the joke posters went? That how I became friends with Average Joe, and met him in real life with my wife. Sad when he got booted and I spoke up for him. We are missing one good conservative poster IIRC.

I remember albaby1 as knowledgeable, clear, detailed, able to cite and link to reputable sources, and infinitely patient no matter which knucklehead he was addressing, often repeatedly.

So do I except on the subject we had discussed.
Go gutter crawling with your reply, it says a lot about you and MYOB.

LM It was years ago now, nothing to do with politics nor the current border situation. I haven’t forgotten, but was quite amazed at your replies and little knowledge on the subject.
End of discussion.

That never happened, or it was you that had such a lack of knowledge that you didn't know it.

I remember albaby1 as knowledgeable, clear, detailed, able to cite and link to reputable sources, and infinitely patient no matter which knucklehead he was addressing, often repeatedly.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of me?


(I crack myself up.....easily amused when it's raining and the surf looks like chocolate milk)

LMDon’t care what albaby says on the subject, we had a long go around at TMF and his knowledge on the subject was zilch. That is all I will say about it.

Sorry LM, but that is a complete inversion of reality. Albaby1 is vastly more knowledgable about the subject than you. Period.

sano: Are you sure you aren't thinking of me?

Well, sure, except maybe for the "infinitely patient" part.

Surf? It's 42 and gray here. We do have one of the Great Lakes, though it's not especially inviting this time of year.

I haven’t forgotten, but was quite amazed at your replies and little knowledge on the subject.
End of discussion.

Well, we spent over a month going back and forth, especially bighairymike (BHM), we all learned a lot, and now we know better. So you can take my summary as accurate (it is...I would have no reason to lie to you), or you can look it up yourself (I'm sure taking care of your husband demands a lot of attention, so I get it if you don't want to do that), or you can try to quote things that tell you what you want to hear.

And that's the end of the discussion. Barring some new information, I'm done. We (most of the board) already moved on.

That never happened, or it was you that had such a lack of knowledge that you didn't know it.

Please stop wasting your time replying on something you have no knowledge on and going off subject.

I didn't remember that one. I thought you were referring to the massacre of journalists until I clicked on your link. This was two years prior:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maguindanao_massacre

Yeah, I'd want to keep my head down if I lived in PI. You never know if you might p-o someone with power.

And I'm not used to that, so I'd probably get myself in trouble. :-)

>>I remember albaby1 as knowledgeable, clear, detailed, able to cite and link to reputable sources, and infinitely patient no matter which knucklehead he was addressing, often repeatedly.<<

Are you sure you aren't thinking of me? - sano</I.

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

LOL, I thought Lapsody was referring to you too...

Well, sure, except maybe for the "infinitely patient" part.

LOL....I'll take it!


I've seen some interesting vids and photos of guys surfing the Greats in winter storms ... wind = waves... 5mm wetsuits like Michelin men with huge frozen beards, in water so cold the waves can get slushy.

But, yeah, it's astounding how patiently albaby goes through the material, arguing the facts over and over.
I was convinced he was just practicing; keeping his chops sharp for work.

Me? These MAGAs are like the guys sitting on the bench over the dunk tank looking to get a rise out of people. I'll spend a quarter for 3 balls, dunk 'em quick, and off to the fresh hot churros concession stand.

Oh, Maguindanao, yes. That happened in 2009 before I got there. Muslim clan territory. Killers. Feuds between the clans have been going on for quite some time and are tough to stop. I would live in Davao on Mindanao, but not sure about anywhere else. It's not just that murders happen frequently, but only 20% or less of the murders get solved. I remember there was a gang rape of a young woman in one clan by men from another clan, and the clans held a trial and the decision was that all of the rapists would be executed to avoid a feud. So they executed all of them.

I remember on of the Ampatuans that directed the Maguindanao massacre died before I left.

There was a Senator Teves that directed the Pamplona massacre, and he's got an international warrant on him, but hasn't been found. One of the few times where the perpetrator who ordered the killings is known.

Senator Teves ran for Governor against Degamo. Teves initially won, but Degamo filed a protest, and was credited with the votes for a candidate that was his exact same name but spelled Dugamo. It was ruled Degamo won.

I talked with one fellow at length about his stay in prison there and decide that I never wanted to take the chance of going to prison.

That never happened, or it was you that had such a lack of knowledge that you didn't know it.
Please stop wasting your time replying on something you have no knowledge on and going off subject.

Sorry, your statements don't pass the smell test and your reactions match those of a person caught in a fib.
But you've been under stress lately with your husband. Adios.

Sorry, your statements don't pass the smell test and your reactions match those of a person caught in a fib.
But you've been under stress lately with your husband. Adios.

I have nothing to prove to your grasping at straws in the wind thinking you are in the know.
Yes, Adios

And do you have to ask about the Chinese? Their society is horrible about human rights. So I'm sure many try to request asylum. Whether it's granted in a different question. Most asylum-seekers either don't pass the initial interview, and don't win in court. opg

SNIP
“National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd on Wednesday expressed concern over the recent influx of military-aged Chinese men coming across the southern border.

More than 30,000 Chinese people were detained by Border Patrol agents for illegally crossing the border from January to November 2023, according to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol data.
, according to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol data.

"Why are we seeing this influx?" Judd asked on the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show. "At best, they're just coming here for a better life or for a better job. At worse, they're coming here to be part of the Chinese government, and that's what scares me an awful lot."

"We know that the Chinese have huge gangs here in the United States, and they control certain parts of our country," he later said. "They control the drug flow. They control the prostitution. They control everything that's illegal in certain portions of the country. We have to look into that. It's very important that we understand why we are having so many people from China, especially military-aged men, from China.”

https://justthenews.com/government/security/border...

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-enco...

LurkerMom: https://justthenews.com/government/security/border...

You really do have the worst sources.

Media Bias Fact Check: Overall, we rate Just the News Questionable and Right Biased based on story selection that mostly favors a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks and the promotion of conspiracy theories and right-wing propaganda.

As Mike Johnson has established, republicans will never work to solve the immigration crisis because it's their bread and butter issue.

commonone laments: “You really do have the worst sources.”
and your
“Media Bias Fact Check”: nonsense, founded by liberals and run by liberals.

I’ll try to go to liberal outlets you and the left uses, you know, like CNN and MSNBC.

I noticed though you overlooked OldJoe’s government run link and source though,
Why is that?

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-enco...

"At best, they're just coming here for a better life or for a better job. At worse, they're coming here to be part of the Chinese government, and that's what scares me an awful lot."


Flee an authoritarian and increasingly oppressive regime? To be sure there are economic refugees, but there's plenty of persecuted Chinese and I posted the stories of two of them. And the Chinese don't want them back. I think the triads know how to get their people over here much easier without going through the Darien gap. But here's a new wrinkle.


<snip>
Tammy Lin: I haven't seen that happen, really. I-- I think-- even back to 2008-- a lot of the Chinese nationals that had failed asylum cases weren't able to get passports-- to be put on the plane to be sent back. So we can't send you back.

Based on our review of data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement – there are at least 36,000 Chinese who have been ordered by U.S. courts to leave the country. But China is notorious for not taking back its citizens and the U.S. can't force China to accept them.

Sharyn Alfonsi: So, then, what happens if they have a failed claim but they can't go back to China?

Tammy Lin: That's a very good question. They're stuck in this limbo.

According to the Department of Justice, last year 55% of Chinese migrants were granted asylum. compared to 14% for every other nationality. <snip>

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinese-migrants-fast...

“Adios” Remember?

LurkerMom: I noticed though you overlooked OldJoe’s government run link and source though,
Why is that?

What point to you think you're proving? The unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds in China was officially 21.3 percent for six consecutive months until June, 2023, when the Chinese government stopped reporting the numbers. Chairman Xi also announced he'd be dictator for life, and the Chinese economy has collapsed.

Is it somehow a surprise that Chinese migrants are seeking asylum here?

Umm, no.

And again, the republican-led Congress has decided it wants to stoke immigration fears and chaos because it's their bread and butter issue in the 2024 election cycle.

Well, every election cycle.

“Adios” Remember?

Adios to that subject. Moving on to the new.

Since your fearless leader killed the bill, you have assumed the mantle for the border problems. If you're Republican let your rep know that you want it solved and screw the orange guys desire for an easy issue. He's the cause of not dealing with that issue. I.E., you can't just look at the border, shout LIBS, and expect any thinking person on this board to respect that anymore.

But we have to work on the problem of nonreturnable Chinese, and that problem will rear it's head again in people from other countries. And the proposals have to have a chance of being accepted internationally, don't forget Mexico. No just 'toss them into the ocean 10 miles out to sea"

Now the Chinese aren't bad people, but their culture got the hell smashed out of it. If we are going to stop this, you are going to have to reach across the aisle. No substitute. The Orange guy screwed you if this is your big issue. It's a 2d to 3rd tier issue for me.

So what are your proposal(s) to deal with non-returnables? Realistic proposals?

Adios to that subject. Moving on to the new.

Adios. I don’t respond to those with their spitball innuendos.

And again, the republican-led Congress has decided it wants to stoke immigration fears and chaos because it's their bread and butter issue in the 2024 election cycle.

Just remember who opened the floodgates rescinding Trumps procreations.
Can’t help the retaliation making OldJoe simmer and bellyache till come November.

And again, the republican-led Congress has decided it wants to stoke immigration fears and chaos because it's their bread and butter issue in the 2024 election cycle.

Commonone” Sorry,

Just remember who opened the floodgates rescinding Trumps procreations.

I meant proclamations, drat spellcheck.

Can’t help the retaliation making OldJoe simmer and bellyache till come November.

Oh, they know. They also know the only reason the democrats were at the bargaining table at all is because it's polling so, so badly for them. Hence the stampy foot and "You own this issue" from them.

A good post-mortem on the border bill is this one:

https://www.fusionaier.org/post/why-the-border-bil...

The border bill has provoked considerable controversy. Its proponents say that it is a major step toward border control that delivers on the long-term goals of many conservatives. Some in the press claim that Republican opposition to the bill is a sign that the party is not serious about governing at all. The bill’s critics, however, have argued that the mechanics of the bill actually undermine the stated goal of restoring an orderly asylum process.

Either in public or on this board, the left was entirely unwilling to address the bill's shortcomings. They in essence played a game of chicken where they forgot that the goal of it is to know when the flinch. They wouldn't compromise and the Republicans called their bluff. Now they're right back where they are.

Instead, the larger points of contention are its most prominent components: the border emergency powers and changes to asylum law. These headline items are simultaneously the biggest selling points for proponents of the bill as well as the targets of the fiercest attacks from its critics. Supporters argue that these measures are major wins for border control. Critics instead find that these measures seem to have more teeth than they actually do.

And we discussed these at length here. left wing proponents of the bill were never really able to wrap their heads around the simple fact that emergency powers that lock in (what used to be) a record of daily encounters is not a good thing. At all. But, they persisted. They also refused to understand the incentives the bill created:

But some of the bill’s critics have argued that these changes could actually provide more incentives for unauthorized migration. Yes, asylum standards would be technically tightened. But DHS officials would also have more authority in applying those standards. Under the bill, a migrant who passed a screening by an asylum officer would immediately be granted a work permit. In fact, one of the architects of the bill, Chris Murphy, highlights this provision. Many critics of the bill fear this reform would mean that the Biden administration’s DHS could simply wave most migrants through the system.

Such fears might be less credible under an administration that had demonstrated a serious intention to control that border. That has not been President Biden’s approach. Upon entering office, Biden deconstructed the immigration policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump, with great fanfare. He terminated the “Remain in Mexico” protocol, which required some asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while petitioning for asylum. He first weakened and then ended the use of Title 42—which had been implemented during the pandemic—to expel immediately some migrants crossing the border.


Oh, and whenever someone asks - usually facetiously, "What's your plan, then?":
Many commentators have suggested that opponents of the bill don’t offer alternatives. But Congressional Republicans have given clear signals of what they are looking for.

The facts of the matter are very simple. Joe Biden campaigned on Trump being an inhumane monster in terms of border policies and vowed to reverse each and every one of them. Well, he did it, and now We the People are paying for his bad governance.

How's it working out for us so far?

The "floodgates" were already open during Trump's first two years. Then COVID happened. That's why migrants slowed to a trickle for about two years. That, and Title 42 (which was enabled by COVID). But Title 42 expired, and the courts ruled it could not be extended because the health emergency (COVID) was over. Biden actually tried a variation of a Trump order, but (like Trump) it was shot down.

Trump did nothing. COVID did. And if elected in November, he will be able to do nothing because he killed the Lankford bill without even knowing what was in it. He can issue all the EOs he wants, but they are almost certain to be overruled by the courts.

Most of what Biden reversed was policies regarding DREAMERS and unaccompanied minors. He didn't (and can't) change the rules about asylum-seekers. Only Congress can do that.

Again, we've been over this. Your points (except for the autocorrect!!) are not valid.

No, the Dems were at the bargaining table because they wanted to support Ukraine, and stick it to Russia. If not for that, the Dems would never have been willing to swallow what was on offer. In fact, the Latino Caucus and some on the far left weren't willing to swallow it regardless. But they were small enough that they would have been outvoted.

And I know you keep harping on "locking in" numbers. What you don't seem to grok is that at least it was a number. Right now, the "locked-in" number is a lemniscate (i.e. infinity). The entirety of the human population could cross the border, and we can do nothing about it. "Locking in" a number less than that probably was a good idea.

And I know you keep harping on "locking in" numbers.

I harp on it...because it was in the bill. Notably, not a one of you was willing to budge on ANY of the numbers.

Right now, the "locked-in" number is a lemniscate (i.e. infinity). The entirety of the human population could cross the border, and we can do nothing about it. "Locking in" a number less than that probably was a good idea.

This isn't true. You guys are hiding behind al and his legal explanations like some kind of Magical Protection Shield from an online video game. We're not held hostage by any international law or treaty. Fact.

At any time Biden could do a number of things that he won't do. Such as: build more wall. Stop suing Texas everytime Abbott erects a barrier. Stop paroling asylees into the country. Or even better, announce that the United States has a right to control its borders and will do that regardless of whatever treaty says the entire world is allowed to waltz in.

That you guys are disputing that last point tells me a lot.

Either in public or on this board, the left was entirely unwilling to address the bill's shortcomings. They in essence played a game of chicken where they forgot that the goal of it is to know when the flinch. They wouldn't compromise and the Republicans called their bluff. Now they're right back where they are.

Your people killed the bill right as we were finding out the details. On you.

left wing proponents of the bill were never really able to wrap their heads around the simple fact that emergency powers that lock in (what used to be) a record of daily encounters is not a good thing.

NO, actually it was YOU that refused to understand that for the past three years we've been well above that average and are now over twice that. Repeatedly you came back with 5k a day is a record. It hasn't been for some time.

Adios. I don’t respond to those with their spitball innuendos.

Hit home, eh?

LM And again, the republican-led Congress has decided it wants to stoke immigration fears and chaos because it's their bread and butter issue in the 2024 election cycle.

I agree LM.

Hit home, eh?

Not at all. I don’t bother with Posters who have to insult instead of attacking the content of a post. Tells me they have nothing of value to say.
My other post you respond to was suppose to be a reply to commonone but somehow I posted it by mistake without finishing it, so don’t pat yourself on the back.

I will not respond to any more of your replies, since you are more interest turning this site into another Political Asylum.

Dope: I harp on it...because it was in the bill. Notably, not a one of you was willing to budge on ANY of the numbers.

I think when asked y'alls response was the 5k should be zero. That was the extent. We have obligations going back to 1951 to consider.

Dope: We're not held hostage by any international law or treaty. Fact.

It's going to take a lot more than anything Dope can say for me to not be willing to live up to our international obligations. WE can see if some things we haven't tried might work, and we can do international negotiations for the burdens of unprecedented migrations, but ignore something because Dope wants to? No.

At any time Biden could do a number of things that he won't do. Such as: build more wall. Where not wasteful.

Stop suing Texas everytime Abbott erects a barrier. I think it's almost required. That's Federal.

Stop paroling asylees into the country. We are a nation of laws, doncha know?

Or even better, announce that the United States has a right to control its borders and will do that regardless of whatever treaty says the entire world is allowed to waltz in. Yes, you want a dictator.

Your people killed the bill right as we were finding out the details.

Of a terrible bill. Carry on.

es, you want a dictator.

You’re just not a serious person.

Dope: Either in public or on this board, the left was entirely unwilling to address the bill's shortcomings

Thank you for admitting that the above is untrue.

Thank you for pointing out our lack of willingness to compromise.

You're welcome.

es, you want a dictator.

You’re just not a serious person.

So only serious persons want dictators? Then I am not a serious person. Dope, your whole diatribe about the bill is just specious political propaganda. Bit Trump is on record as wanting to be a dictator for a day. He will subvert the government because he has the power of the executive to replace.

My solution to the non-returnable Chinese is to negotiate with tariffs in mind. Krugman pretty much said the dirty little secret about tariffs is that you have to go well above 10% before you cause harm. The Chinese economy is sluggish right now - so put it on the trade table and see if we can't get visas issued.

But I'm still not a serious person who wants a dictator.

There is no international police force that would arrest Biden for violating a treaty. However, a treaty ratified by the Senate is US law. So if we violated a treaty, we're violating the law. And a court would almost certainly shoot it down.

If you want to stop releasing asylum-seekers into the country to await their court dates, then fund more detention centers and change the law to allow the detaining of children. Until that happens, they have to be released. Again...the law. (Well, and resources to build and staff detention centers.)

Yes, it is absolutely true that we would be violating the law if we shutoff most or all migration related to asylum. Even the 5000 encounter limit was legally questionable.

Don't like it? Change the law. Probably won't happen now while you and I are alive, depending on how old you are.

We're not held hostage by any international law or treaty. Fact.

Held hostage? No. But we are still constrained by them, in the sense that we cannot violate them without consequences.

Those consequences aren't analogous to what happens to individual people if they violate the laws of their countries. There's no uber global-government that can put the U.S. in "country jail" for breaking international law, the way you can be arrested and imprisoned for breaking national laws.

But if we break our international commitments, then we lose some of our ability to get other countries to honor their international commitments. That's the currency of international law. You don't throw other countries' ambassadors in prison so that they won't throw your ambassadors in prison, and everyone benefits if ambassadors can do their jobs. The U.S. (like most countries) benefits from a massive amount of international law that protects our interests abroad, everything from mutually honoring copyright and patent and other IP regulations (so Apple can sell Iphones in Europe without them being knocked off) to mail treaties and air travel treaties and a ton of other ones.

Human rights treaties are especially important. Partially because they allow our own citizens to travel abroad in relative (not 100%!) safety from the depredations of foreign governments, but also because international human rights law has traditionally been one of our more potent weapons against the sphere of influence of dictatorships like China. We're different from the Chinese (we argue) because we honor human rights and they don't, which makes it easier for us to try to arrange coalitions and alliances to check their power.

No one can stop us from breaking international law, but the consequences to U.S. interests are much, much higher when we do things that violate our treaty obligations than when we do things that we've never promised not to do.

Obligations under international law with respect to asylees are pretty minimal. All we're required to do is give them a hearing, and not send them back to their home countries if they will be subject to persecution. You can expel them if they don't meet the standard, and you don't have to let them loose even if they do. You can detain them in refugee camps for the rest of their lives, if you choose. So given the almost nonexistent benefits of not providing the hearing, it's absolutely not worth the cost of breaking international law to suspend asylum on a permanent basis.

And, as has been mentioned a few times, the President doesn't have the power to do that on his own anyway. Absent an act of Congress to amend the statute to abrogate the 1959 Convention, the President is required to allow the asylees to remain in the U.S. until they get a hearing on their claims. It's not a "Magical Protection Shield" - it's a U.S. statute, and both Trump and Biden have been enjoined from violating it by the courts in each of their respective Administrations. The Executive simply does not have the legal authority to return asylees to their home countries without providing them a hearing.

1pg However, a treaty ratified by the Senate is US law. So if we violated a treaty, we're violating the law. And a court would almost certainly shoot it down.

And we are a nation of laws as 1pg points out. The position some take that you can contrive an excuse to violate the law is only because Congress hasn't legislated, and won't legislate an alt right wing agenda into the law.

Held hostage? No. But we are still constrained by them, in the sense that we cannot violate them without consequences.

Then indulge me in a hypothetical. Let's say in a fit of pique the voters come November vote every single Republican out of national office. Not only does Joe Biden win another term, but the dems have 400 seats in the House of Representatives. And not just anybody in those seats, either: I'm talking 400 Pramila Jayapal (who is my Representative, by the way) clones.

Over in the Senate, a wave of retirements means that the democrats are able to put 85 Elizabeth Warren clones into the upper chamber.

Now to our exercise. Suppose a similar wave happens in every single european country and the World Economic Forum suddenly becomes a de facto seat of government: treaties are brokered by the attendees and sent back to each nation to sign. The US, with its newly seated government, is a willing participant.

Let's say the first thing to pass is a new international treaty that bans certain criticisms of government policy, requires press agencies to be certified Pure by an international council of fact-checkers, puts penalties in place for citizens who express thoughts contrary to the messaging approved by the international council of fact-checkers, and requires appeals to made directly the international body. The measure passes in the Congress 400-20 and in the Senate 85-11. Joe Biden enthusiastically approves the treaty.

Now to our question. Are US citizens bound by this treaty?

No one can stop us from breaking international law, but the consequences to U.S. interests are much, much higher when we do things that violate our treaty obligations than when we do things that we've never promised not to do.

When have we ever not promised to defend our borders and who exactly in the international community is going to have an issue with that?

And by the way:

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/19/biden-trump-age-s...

What we're hearing: Biden's SOTU address played well last year — he seemed agile and riffed about the GOP and Social Security. Officials close to him, needing a repeat triumph, will spend hours on everything from the text to his physical preparation to exploit the prime-time moment.

"Everyone around him is well aware — well aware — of the need to jack this campaign up," a source close to Biden said. "The only way to deal with the negative aftershocks of the special counsel's report [slamming Biden's age] is for the president to be out there, to be visible — to be strong of presence and strong of voice."
One bold move that Biden has considered, we're told, is an executive order that would dramatically stanch the record flow of migrants into the Southwest. This could even happen in the two weeks before the address, allowing Biden to say he took action while Republicans just talk.

But we are still constrained by them, in the sense that we cannot violate them without consequences.

Dope: Are US citizens bound by this treaty?

He's already told you the answer.

But I will say this, certain criticisms of the government sound like a violation of Free Speech. So If the USSC decides it is a violation of the Constitution. Not sure what the process is after that.


When have we ever not promised to defend our borders and who exactly in the international community is going to have an issue with that?

We can defend our borders from an armed invasion, no problem there. Securing our borders is different. We need a bigger budget, more officers, and the willingness to deal with problems at the border in a non-partisan efficient way.

I would say prior to 1900 we didn't secure our borders, began doing so shortly after that, and always had people crossing the border illegally.

No one in the international community has a problem with us securing our borders as long as it isn't inhumane, we let asylum seekers apply, and honor agreements we have made. And if we decide to violate those agreements,let it be after we have carefully considered the consequences.

When have we ever not promised to defend our borders and who exactly in the international community is going to have an issue with that? - Dope

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

I am starting to feel that way myself. We are being overrun by the unintended consequences of a treaty signed 70 years ago. And we live with these consequences without question, because what other choice do we have?

There are 160 countries that signed the treaty, per wiki,

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention or the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who a refugee is and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum.

Interesting that the asylum seekers streaming through our southern border had to pass through a number of other countries that also signed the same treaty and therefore in theory have the same "obligations" that we do. Yet the asylees flow right through them looking for a better deal in the USA.

Here is something enlightening from wiki regarding this treaty,

There exists a diversity of definition of refugees across the globe, where countries and local districts even have differing legal meanings and rights allocated to refugees.[3]

So right there is where we are as far as I am concerned. The open borders crowd wants our present condition to appear to be an iron clad requirement of international law. The "diversity of definition" verbiage suggests that other signatory nations apply their own interpretations within the treaty framework. The senate border bill that was shot down would have been an example of the USA applying this principle.













And present day realities make it imperative we do the same.

Now to our question. Are US citizens bound by this treaty?

No, because the treaty would never go into effect. Both Congress and the President lack the power to enter into a treaty that violates the US Constitution, as your example clearly does. Entering into a treaty is subject to the same constitutional limitations as any other federal act - see SCOTUS’ decision in Reid v Covert.

But while an interesting question, it has nothing to do with the instant situation. The 1957 Convention on Refugees doesn’t violate the Constitution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

When have we ever not promised to defend our borders and who exactly in the international community is going to have an issue with that?

We never promised not to defend our borders. We did, however, promise not to return refugees who face persecution back to their home countries. Which is why we can’t just expel asylum applicants without a hearing - because it would violate their human rights. And a lot of other countries would have a problem if we started violating international human rights laws and engaging in refoulement.

I am starting to feel that way myself. We are being overrun by the unintended consequences of a treaty signed 70 years ago. And we live with these consequences without question, because what other choice do we have?


Exactly. Would any other treaty signatory subject themselves to this? Of course not. Let the country without sin cast the first stone, as it were.

Interesting that the asylum seekers streaming through our southern border had to pass through a number of other countries that also signed the same treaty and therefore in theory have the same "obligations" that we do. Yet the asylees flow right through them looking for a better deal in the USA.

It seems to me that there is a way to interpret the treaty and stay within its bounds, yes, by looking at the language and addressing your point here.

And present day realities make it imperative we do the same.

You said it, brother.

No, because the treaty would never go into effect. Both Congress and the President lack the power to enter into a treaty that violates the US Constitution, as your example clearly does. Entering into a treaty is subject to the same constitutional limitations as any other federal act - see SCOTUS’ decision in Reid v Covert.

Aha, so we agree that treaties that violate the US Constitution aren't valid.
How about this line in the Constitution (Article 4):

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.

Is it not a reasonable interpretation of this clause that the United States Government has the right to regulate its borders?

BHMWe are being overrun by the unintended consequences of a treaty signed 70 years ago. And we live with these consequences without question, because what other choice do we have?

Because we haven't attended to the necessary legislation. I know it's frustrating, but we're paralyzed because it's a great campaign issue.

Interesting that the asylum seekers streaming through our southern border had to pass through a number of other countries that also signed the same treaty and therefore in theory have the same "obligations" that we do. Yet the asylees flow right through them looking for a better deal in the USA.

I agree. I would go with them having to apply in the first country that would accept them and was safe for them that they passed through. I'd experiment to see how that worked.

I noted that one of the requirements in the defunct bill was that if they could move to a safe place within their country, they should do that.

There exists a diversity of definition of refugees across the globe, where countries and local districts even have differing legal meanings and rights allocated to refugees.[3]

The paper [3] reference is about: " refugee employment and workforce integration. Using a relational framework, we organize our findings around three levels of analysis – institutional, organizational and individual – to outline the complexity of factors affecting refugees’ employment outcomes." So that's about once the are in the country there employment rights may differ because the internal definition of a refugee governs the employment and integration into the workforce. The treaty defines the international definition of the refugee for purposes of the obligations of the treaty.

Dope:
Exactly. Would any other treaty signatory subject themselves to this? Of course not. Let the country without sin cast the first stone, as it were.

We were treated to months of boats crossing the Mediterranean to Europe, boats sinking, little dead kids washing ashore, huge migrant camps, then caravans of migrants crossing Europe. It was a daily video spectacle. Your favorite country, Germany, can hit you right between the eyes with a nice stone.

"When have we ever not promised to defend our borders...."

When are you going to promise to stop beating your wife?

I cannot believe you think you are actually making a serious argument with that nonsense.

Is it not a reasonable interpretation of this clause that the United States Government has the right to regulate its borders?

The federal government does have the right to regulate its borders, but it comes from other sections of the Constitution than that Clause. The Invasion Clause certainly applies only to protection from foreign armed forces, and wouldn't apply to civilian migration. We know this because the Founders never imposed any restrictions on migration, just nationalization. For the first hundred years of our history, any civilian could cross any border at any time for pretty much any reason - if you wanted to walk into the country and live here, you were allowed to. That didn't change until 1882, with the Chinese Exclusion Act. So it's pretty clear that the Invasion Clause referred only to military forces, not civilians looking to move to (or just travel in) the U.S.

And don't confuse the government's right to regulate the borders with an argument that it is somehow unconstitutional for them to adopt any particular level of migration regulation, even a very low level of regulation if they chose. If the U.S. government decided to go back to the pre-1882 regime of having no controls on civilian migration, it would be bad policy - but it wouldn't be unconstitutional. So there's no constitutional limitation on the federal government agreeing to a treaty that provides basic rights (and pretty minimal ones) for refugees - they can commit by treaty to doing anything they have the power to do without a treaty. By way of example, the Congress has the power to set tariffs - which includes the power to have no (or very low) tariffs - so even though the have the power to regulate trade, they always have the ability to enter into free trade agreements and other treaties where they agree to not exercise that power (or exercise it very lightly and according to agreed-upon rules).

We are being overrun by the unintended consequences of a treaty signed 70 years ago. And we live with these consequences without question, because what other choice do we have?

We are being overrun in large part because the major religions are still preaching 'go forth and multiply.'

Economically advanced nations have had the ability to promote the broad range of Planned Parenthood services for a long long time.

Now there's a human tidal wave -regardless of economic status- all looking for more. A poor person wants a roof and a meal. A middle class person wants his kids to get into a good college. A rich man wants a mooring next to the Bezos yachts.

We're running out of time, folks. We're running out of potable water, and we're burning too much of the polluting materials that took billions of years to sequester that enabled this petri dish we inhabit to support our species.

Free birth control for all, free abortion on demand for all.

It's the dirt cheap solution to overpopulation.

We are being overrun by the unintended consequences of a treaty signed 70 years ago. And we live with these consequences without question, because what other choice do we have?

We can change the law properly. Not with EOs that will be overruled (as has happened several times over the past decade). Some people think we can just "do it", ignoring the law because they don't happen to like that law. Well, we can't.

The senate border bill that was shot down would have been an example of the USA applying this principle.

I agree. That's exactly what it would have done. But whether cynicism (e.g. "I need a campaign issue to enrage people"), or simple ignorance (e.g. "the POTUS can fix this with the stroke of a pen"), that opportunity is now gone.

I almost look forward to the day when a Rep is in the White House (NOT TRUMP! Someone competent and not insane), and watching all the immigration hawks' disappointment when their POTUS can do nothing, and has to go ask Congress to change the law.

I seriously doubt the law will get changed in the 20 or so years I have left.

We are being overrun by the unintended consequences of a treaty signed 70 years ago. And we live with these consequences without question, because what other choice do we have?

The Republican Party should just SHUT UP about the border and immigration. They lost all credibility when they refused to pass the bipartisan reform bill, simply because Trump wants to keep yammering about the border for political points.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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