Post New

...to attack a NATO ally.

Huh.

At his rally in Conway, SC today, candidate Trump told the cult that when he was asked by a NATO partner if the country had not met its financial goal and was attacked by Russia, "would you protect us?"

TRUMP: "No, I would not protect you and, in fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want."

And, Trump cult, that's the guy you want as president of the United States.

BTW, this should be front page news and discussed on every Sunday political program tomorrow but here's betting it's not even mentioned.

I get frustration about not meeting defense spending targets. But this is an utterly irresponsible thing to say.

Plus, if I'm not mistaken, it would be a violation of US law not to respond. As I recall, treaties become US law upon ratification. So, at least in principle, there is no choice except to respond if we have a ratified treaty on the books (which I believe the NATO alliance is...the "T" stands for "treaty").

TRUMP: "No, I would not protect you and, in fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want."

And, Trump cult, that's the guy you want as president of the United States.

And I suppose the crowd gave a huge cheer at this idiocy, but then they cheer wildly at any absurdity or lie that comes out of the orange idiots pie hole.

Trump spoke at a rally in South Carolina on Saturday, telling attendees that he wouldn't defend NATO allies from Russia. Specifically, he said, "One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, 'Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?' I said, 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?... No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.'" He ended by saying you, "gotta pay your pills!" (Not sure if 'pills' is a typo or a Trump brain fart) Probably a typo.

But...Trump talking about someone not paying their bills! That's rich coming from guy who is notorious for stiffing people and evading paying what he owes any corrupt way he can.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2667236580/

OK, rawstory is left biased. Can someone find a reference to this from mainstream media? It occurred today, so maybe they haven't caught up yet? Or have they all decided to just ignore Trump's crazy talk? This should be splashed all over the media and in the past it would have ended his political career. Abandoning the alliance that has helped to keep the world safe for so many decades? Abandoning our allies? Trump is a Benedict Arnold. It's like he is telling Putin, when I regain the Whitehouse you can do whatever you want in Europe. What a shameless POS.

onepoorguy: I get frustration about not meeting defense spending targets.

We talked about this less than two weeks ago. To repeat:

First, allied leaders agreed on two key 10-year spending targets at the Wales summit in September 2014. By 2024, they said, members would, 1.) "move towards" or go beyond spending 2 percent of GDP on their militaries, while, 2.) committing 20 percent of annual defense spending to major new equipment and related research and development.

Not all NATO nations have met the 2 percent goal but most have moved towards it, as agreed. As of July 2023, all 31 member states had surpassed the 20 percent spending target. As Fabrice Pothier, a former director of policy planning for NATO, said: "It's not just about how much you spend, it's where you spend it."

<SNIP>
He has in the past recalled privately telling NATO members that the United States would not defend them from Russian attacks if they were in arrears. Last year, he claimed during a campaign speech that “hundreds of billions of dollars came flowing in” to NATO after he made that threat.
Editors’ Picks
Welcome to Japan, Taylor Swift Fans. Please Remain Seated as You Cheer.
A Two-Ton Lifeguard That Saved a Young Pup
On the Eve of the Super Bowl, Usher Proves His Mastery

On Saturday, he again brought up that anecdote, saying that he told European leaders they had to “pay up.”

Then, he said, the president of “a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’”

Mr. Trump said he asked the other president if the country was “delinquent” in its payments. The leader responded, “Yes. Let’s say that happened,” Mr. Trump said.

“No, I would not protect you,” Mr. Trump recalled responding. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You’ve got to pay. You got to pay your bills."<SNIP>

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/10/us/politics/tru...

Still left, high factual.

"You’ve got to pay. You got to pay your bills." ~DJ Trump

Unless your name is Trump of course...

Fun Fact:

Trump has filed Chapter 11 six times.

“No, I would not protect you,” Mr. Trump recalled responding. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You’ve got to pay. You got to pay your bills."<SNIP>

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/10/us/politics/tru...

Still left, high factual.

Thanks.

Now can you find reporting of this on FOX?

"You’ve got to pay. You got to pay your bills." ~DJ Trump

Unless your name is Trump of course...

Fun Fact:

Trump has filed Chapter 11 six times.

Yep, in effect Trump has been bailed out many times.

Self-made billionaire: bullshit.

No, I would not protect you,” Mr. Trump recalled responding. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You’ve got to pay. You got to pay your bills."<SNIP> - NYT via ges

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

First, let's expand your quote to provide more complete context,

He said: ‘One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?”’

He then added: ‘I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent? No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”’

This is an example of the left not understanding Trump's style....

Let me point out what I am getting at by asking a question

Which answer do you think will spur the recalcitrant members of NATO towards meeting their spending commitments? The answer he gave or this answer

He said: "One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?"

Trump: Well gosh golly, the USA knows times are tough, so catch up when you can and don't worry about your commitment. The USA has your back.

The BITEME institute rates the NYT story as correct in that the words were literally spoken but incomplete and biased by taking Trumps words literally while missing the real message.

The BITEME institute rates the NYT story as correct in that the words were literally spoken but incomplete and biased by taking Trumps words literally while missing the real message.



Trump is not and has never been a polished communicator in the sense that most Presidents are - he uses heavy amounts of sarcasm and other methods to deliver his points, which land with his audience. That audience does not include the traditional media, who routinely fail to grab the right context of what he’s saying.


Were Trump a democrat he’d get that context added but since he isn’t…

bighairymike: This is an example of the left not understanding Trump's style....

Dope1: Were Trump a democrat he’d get that context added but since he isn’t…

Well, look at the cult defending the indefensible.

Why, it's all our fault, ya' say... we just don't understand Trump Talk. He's just a man of the people speakin' plainly to his audience of regular folks who understand his 'sarcasm'. "Grab 'em by the pussy" was just us misunderstanding locker room talk. Calling the war dead "losers" and "suckers" was what, just sarcasm? Yeah, that doesn't quite work, does it?

Well, first off, Trump doesn't understand NATO. There are no "bills", there is no debt, and nations don't "owe" anything to NATO. As mentioned upthread, they made a commitment in 2014 to work toward or achieve a two percent of GDP spending goal but it wasn't an iron-clad agreement that if not met would result in consequences.

Second, it would be just as easy to say that this was Trump's real intention: "Hey, Russia, if you're listening, if you help me again and I win the election in 2024, you can do whatever you want to do in Europe and I won't do anything to stop you."

And the BITEME institute rates your never ending support of the man who talks about windmills killing whales, said COVID-19 would magically disappear and did almost nothing while over one million Americans died from the disease, suggested that injecting disinfectant may be a way to beat the virus, constantly complains about water pressure, says he'll impose a 60 percent tariff on all goods imported from Chyna, repeatedly confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, doesn't know Friday from Saturday, suggests he would withdraw the United States from NATO, believes Vladimir Putin over our FBI, CIA, and State Department, was impeached twice, is under 91 felony indictment in four jurisdictions, raped a woman, leads an organization that committed fraud, is psychologically aberrant, and, oh, yeah... engaged in multiple efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election as PATHETIC.

And the BITEME institute rates your never ending support of the man who talks about windmills killing whales, said COVID-19 would magically disappear and did almost nothing while over one million Americans died from the disease, suggested that injecting disinfectant may be a way to beat the virus, constantly complains about water pressure, says he'll impose a 60 percent tariff on all goods imported from Chyna, repeatedly confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, doesn't know Friday from Saturday, suggests he would withdraw the United States from NATO, believes Vladimir Putin over our FBI, CIA, and State Department, was impeached twice, is under 91 felony indictment in four jurisdictions, raped a woman, leads an organization that committed fraud, is psychologically aberrant, and, oh, yeah... engaged in multiple efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election as PATHETIC. = CO

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

Nice rant..... Really, I gave it a rec even though you didn't work Nazi into your screed.

Trump has filed Chapter 11 six times.


"..... a USA Today Network analysis found that he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary citizens … who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them,"

And the BITEME institute rates your never ending support of the man who talks about windmills killing whales, said COVID-19 would magically disappear and did almost nothing while over one million Americans died from the disease, suggested that injecting disinfectant may be a way to beat the virus, constantly complains about water pressure, says he'll impose a 60 percent tariff on all goods imported from Chyna, repeatedly confused Nikki Haley with N

And this, children, is what a excessive day drinking does to you.

Seek help. Seriously.

"Trump has filed Chapter 11 six times."

"A USA Today Network analysis found that he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary citizens,
who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them."

It's almost laughable to see how all these red-state republicans have been scammed by a slick talking, daft dodging, make-up wearing, NYC con-artist.

If only they would stop looking at the shadows in the cave and step into the light of day...

He said: ‘One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?”’

He then added: ‘I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent? No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”’

This is an example of the left not understanding Trump's style....

When the left and the rest of the world hears this they hear.. "you godd@m good for nothing deadbeat shith#ole countries better payu up or I'll leave y9ou high and dry with no defense if you get attacked. In fact I might even call them up and tell 'em these guys are late, so have fun restoring the empire!"

The STICKITINYOUREAR think tank advises you that the entire world is listening, not just the rural Q folk, and we have trade agreements, defense alliances, etc. It's not a zero sum game, but Trump is talking giving our opponents an advantage buy making us appear untrustworthy. Putin, more than anything, spurred countries to get closer to 2%. I remember when a friend first posited NATO was irrelevant, then Putin made a move and I thought - guess not.

Well, look at the cult defending the indefensible.

Meanwhile Dr Jill and staff has OldJoe to prop up and defend.
I’m still laughing at OldJoe’s press disaster the other evening.
Dr Jill should know better than to let her ward stay up after eight pm.

Nothing wrong with using leverage on mooch wimpy racist NATO countries.

If America decided to pay less - then the Liberals and their European Racist Wimp friends would go nuts.

And also meanwhile:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/09/opinion/biden-a...
https://archive.is/MfO8O

The Challenges of an Aging President

They can't hide it anymore, that's the challenge <--- Spoiler alert

Mr. Biden’s performance at his news conference on Thursday night was intended to assure the public that his memory is fine and argue that Mr. Hur was out of line; instead, the president raised more questions about his cognitive sharpness and temperament, as he delivered emotional and snappish retorts in a moment when people were looking for steady, even and capable responses to fair questions about his fitness.

In other words, despite the ridiculous attempts by the White House and the paid shills that infest boards like this one...it's not working. The public saw a dementia-wracked old dude.

Mr. Biden’s allies are already going to the usual Washington playbook of dismissing the special counsel’s report as partisan. Regardless of Mr. Hur’s motivation, the details that he presented spoke to worries voters already had. The president has to reassure and build confidence with the public by doing things that he has so far been unwilling to do convincingly. He needs to be out campaigning with voters far more in unrehearsed interactions. He could undertake more town hall meetings in communities and on national television. He should hold regular news conferences to demonstrate his command of and direction for leading the country.

Here's another thing: Biden can't do any of this. He couldn't in 2020 when they hid him in the basement and he's even less capable now.

Nothing wrong with using leverage on mooch wimpy racist NATO countries.

If America decided to pay less - then the Liberals and their European Racist Wimp friends would go nuts.

I want to sell cars to the board's libs. Bet I could get them to pay 40% over MSRP every time by appealing to their desire to virtue signal with every action.

Yes, they are moving towards it. Some have met it. Ironically, because Putin launched his war. That motivated members. And spurred the addition of two more members to the alliance.

And, yes, it's also "where you spend it". A good chunk of several budgets are going to support Ukraine.

Yes, they are moving towards it.

Are they?
https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/germanys....

The remaining gap in German defense spending for 2024 can be understood as follows. The announced individual contributions from the defense budget (EUR 51.8 billion), the Special Fund (EUR 19.2 billion), and shares from other budgets (about EUR 7 billion) correspond to a total of about EUR 78 billion. NATO’s two percent target will, however, require about EUR 85 billion in defense spending in 2024. The gap will get even worse in the future. According to current planning, Germany’s total defense spending will drop massively after 2026 once the Special Fund has been used up and its regular defense budget remains constant.

Short answer? No.
Not even close. Been this way for 40 years.

So what's this "Special fund"? It's a thing they passed in 2022:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-lawmak...

BERLIN, June 3 (Reuters) - Germany's Bundestag, the lower house of parliament, on Friday approved creation of the 100 billion euro ($107.2 billion) special defence fund that Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The money is destined to top up the regular defence budget of around 50 billion euros over several years to help re-build Germany's military, which has suffered years of neglect following the end of the Cold war.

So they need to be at ~85B Euros, their regular budget is just north of 50B, and this Special Fund runs out in a few years.

Germany is a special case. Their budgeting and procurement is a mess. For a people with a reputation for order and organization, that bit is a mess. Pretty much every contract that gets awarded ends up in a lawsuit by the people that didn't get the contract.

And while you single out Germany, at least 14 members now exceed their 2% target. Including the US. The rest have increased their spending, except for Italy (which has actually gone down a bit).

Germany is a special case.

They're by far the EU's richest member and they haven't paid anything close to the 2% in decades.

As a nation, you either believe national defense is a thing or you don't. Germany doesn't.

And while you single out Germany, at least 14 members now exceed their 2% target. Including the US. The rest have increased their spending, except for Italy (which has actually gone down a bit).

Let's look at the data:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...(%25_of_GDP).png

In 2021 the number was...3. Greece, Estonia and Latvia. Since then it's gotten marginally better, but I have no idea where the number 14 came from. They're nowhere near that:

https://www.politico.eu/article/is-there-a-war-on-...

Only 7 of 30 alliance members spent at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense in 2022.

7. And one of them is us:
Of 30 members, only Greece, Poland, the Baltic states, the United Kingdom and the United States spent more than 2 percent of their economic output on defense last year, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s annual report shows.

There's a word for this: freeloading. There's another word for this: deadbeat.

Politico has the data:

Nation / Defense as a % of GDP in 2022:

Greece - 3.54
US - 3.46
Lithuania - 2.47
Poland - 2.42
UK - 2.16
Estonia - 2.12
Latvia - 2.07

That's the 2% club. Notably all these nations except the US, UK and Greece are all ex-Soviet client states.

How about some NATO 'stalwart' countries?

France - 1.89
Italy - 1.51
Germany - 1.49
Canada - 1.29
Spain - 1.09

Sheesh.

And by the way, the fastest way to encourage some of these deadbeats is remove US troops and facilities from them and place them in countries that actually give a rip. For example, relocate what's in Germany to Poland.

I suspect the Poles would love that. As I recall, we did some training exercises with them last summer.

However, it would be ridiculously expensive to move infrastructure from Germany. Plus, tactically, they are further back from the front lines (or what would be the front lines).

Yes, your data seems to be pretty good. I found this chart useful, even if it's from last July: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/scope-polands...

As of July, 11 are exceeding their targets. Which, as someone point out, they don't owe NATO. It's not like a tax, there is no revenue agency. It's a target or goal. BTW, I earlier misspoke. TWO nations have seen a drop, Italy and Croatia. The rest have seen an increase towards target (including Germany). No surprise, the countries feeling most threatened are generally the ones with the biggest increases. Thanks, Vlad!

However, it would be ridiculously expensive to move infrastructure from Germany.

Depends on who pays for it.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/08/poland-agrees-...
WASHINGTON: The Polish government will pay the majority of costs associated with stationing 5,500 US troops at bases within its borders as part of a new security cooperation pact, the Pentagon has confirmed to Breaking Defense.

The deal comes as the Trump administration keeps prodding longtime allies like South Korea and Japan to pay more of the costs of tens of thousands of US troops within their borders, while President Trump has complained that countries like Germany don’t meet defense spending goals outlined by NATO.

But Poland, which already meets the NATO-mandated goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on national defense by 2024, has agreed to take more US forces, aircraft and drones while footing what is likely to be a hefty bill to build infrastructure for those forces as they flow in and out of the country on a rotational basis.

Move troops and facilities there gradually.

As of July, 11 are exceeding their targets.

Finland is a new NATO member, they weren't on the list before. Of the others, only Slovakia, Hungary and Romania really moved the needle. The Germans, French and Italians aren't doing much but at Italy has a decent PM now so that might change.

At any rate. EU countries need to foot their share of the defense bill.
They're not.

It's almost laughable to see how all these red-state republicans have been scammed by a slick talking, daft dodging, make-up wearing, NYC con-artist. - Bansky

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


And it's almost laughable to see how all these liberals continuously underestimate how little the sort of things they criticize him for matter to his base.

Sure, if I could get Trump policies in a less controversial wrapper, I would prefer that.

I would prefer a more polished Trump not because of liberal criticism, but rather he could accomplish so much more on the policy front if he didn't have to put so much energy into defending his blunt nature.

I would prefer a more polished Trump not because of liberal criticism, but rather he could accomplish so much more on the policy front if he didn't have to put so much energy into defending his blunt nature.

This. DeSantis was all the policy wins + competency minus all the drama. We'll just have to wait for 2028 for him.

Putin, more than anything, spurred countries to get closer to 2%. = Lapsody

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

I am starting to see this "getting closer" argument offered as a defense from mean old Trump hurting NATO's feelings.

You should realize that "getting close" is a meaningless statement allowing the person hearing it to read into it whatever warm and cuddly impression he needs to feel.

To me, getting close could mean anything. And some delinquencies demand an entirely different approach than ineffective repeated polite requests.

What does getting close mean?

a. The delinquent NATO member country is at 1.8% and is closing on the 2.0 % goal at .05% per year - get there in 4 years, responsible;

or

b. The delinquent NATO member country is at 1.2% and is closing on the 2.0 % goal at .01% per year - get there in 80 years, taking advantage of the other members;

or

c. The delinquent NATO member country is at 0.7% and has been there since the Clinton Admin - will never get there, a charity case.

Trump is reminding the delinquent NATO member countries, in his typical blunt style, what the meaning of 'Commitment" is. These obligations are real, and not to be dismissed like school loans.

bighairymike: I would prefer a more polished Trump not because of liberal criticism, but rather he could accomplish so much more on the policy front if he didn't have to put so much energy into defending his blunt nature.


Encouraging and cheering on Russia to attack a European country and NATO ally or calling American war dead "suckers" and "losers" is not "his blunt nature" or "hurting NATO's feelings" but the talk of a traitor to American ideals and a belly crawler for the enemy.

To paraphrase the Grail Knight, "You have chosen poorly."

Encouraging and cheering on Russia to attack a European country and NATO ally or calling American war dead "suckers" and "losers" is not "his blunt nature" or "hurting NATO's feelings" but the talk of a traitor to American ideals and a belly crawler for the enemy.

To paraphrase the Grail Knight, "You have chosen poorly." = CO

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

Like I said,

And it's almost laughable to see how all these liberals continuously underestimate how little the sort of things they criticize him for matter to his base.

And it's almost laughable to see how all these liberals continuously underestimate how little the sort of things they criticize him for matter to his base.

No. That's what leaves us aghast. Forty years ago a Trump-type never would have gotten past a primary.

And I do not mean this as an insult, but your notion that Trump has a "policy" is truly sad. He had the trifecta when he was elected, and got almost nothing done. There was very little to oppose him. But he chose to govern by decree, which the federal courts repeatedly shot down as illegal. He did manage to get some SCOTUS appointments, but only because McConnell arranged it for him.

He is grossly, laughably incompetent, with no policy stance except how to grift as much power and money as he can from whomever he can. And to "even the score" with people on his enemies list.

And it's almost laughable to see how all these liberals continuously underestimate how little the sort of things they criticize him for matter to his base.

We've also established what day drinking does to a human mind. It's not pretty.

Disagree. I thought DeSantis was better than he actually was. His campaign exposed that he is just a more intelligent (slightly) version of Trump. He picks fights he doesn't need to (e.g. Disney), and really isn't a policy wonk. Of everyone that attempted to run this time, I think Christie was probably the most competent and politically savvy. Even with the bad optics of his closing a beach, and then lounging on that very same beach. I wouldn't vote for him, but at least I can respect him as a politician.

Haley would probably be next. Her calling out of DeSantis and Trump were right on the money. I would think from a policy standpoint, if you support what you claim are Trump's policies (ignoring that he has no policies), you would want her. She gave voice to actual policies, and likely has the competence to make them reality. Again, I wouldn't vote for her. But she does not represent chaos. She represents competent opposition.

He is grossly, laughably incompetent, with no policy stance except how to grift as much power and money as he can from whomever he can.

And yet, the country and the world was in much better shape when he was in charge.

Christie? You guys LOATHED him as Governor of New Jersey. One guy who posts here especially had it out for him.

As far as Disney goes, DeSantis was right. Do you think corporations should run states?

Uhhh...no it wasn't.

Just the US economy, Biden has recovered us from COVID (that Trump grossly mishandled, resulting in tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths), so we have near-record low unemployment, I believe real wages ticked-up slightly since he took office, the economy is firing on all cylinders, the stock market is reaching new highs...

Heck...we agree that China is an enemy...well, I just read yesterday that for the first time in 20 years we are importing more from Mexico than China. Biden's approach to China is having an effect. (Also, their real estate market is crashing, but I'm not sure how much Biden influenced that with his trade restrictions.)

Can we hold Biden responsible for Hamas? No. Can we hold him responsible for the asylum law and the southern border? No. Can we hold him responsible for Putin? If anyone contributed to Putin's boldness, it was Trump. Not saying he did, but Biden certainly did not. Biden isn't making noises about abandoning NATO.

As far as any POTUS can influence things, Biden has been on the whole a positive influence. The things he can affect are much better than they were four years ago.

To think Trump was making anything better is to ignore everything he made worse, which was pretty much everything.

bighairymike: I would prefer a more polished Trump not because of liberal criticism, but rather he could accomplish so much more on the policy front if he didn't have to put so much energy into defending his blunt nature.

There is a reason Trump is near the bottom in Presidential rankings...not because he's 'blunt' but because the is TOTALLY INCOMPETENT! His first administration was a disaster and could have been far worse if there weren't some good people in the Executive Branch to start with. He did his best to get rid of those good people. A second Trump Presidency will be utter chaos.

"...blunt nature..." That is hilarious. You can't even call that just understatement. It is completely absurd.

Mike, like most in the cult, you will do anything to rationalize supporting this awful man.

And it's almost laughable to see how all these liberals continuously underestimate how little the sort of things they criticize him for matter to his base.

No, no, no. It is truly horrible how so many good Americans are fooled by this con artist. How little it matters to his base is shocking. How can people be so gullible?

No, I didn't like Christie. I said I wouldn't vote for him. But he IS competent. That was my criteria. I was looking at the Rep stable, and asking "who among them is competent". Christie is one. Haley is another. Trump? Definitely not.

DeSantis was wrong. Disney wasn't running the state. They exercised their rights as a corporation to acknowledge/support LGBTQ people. DeSantis called it "woke" and tried to stop them. That's how it started. All the stuff about the semi-autonomous district that was Disney came later. And that district was approved by Florida officials at that time. If they can legally remove that status, fine. That's for the lawyers. But this whole feud started because DeSantis was obsessed with "wokeness", and couldn't stand that Disney was trying to respect LGBTQ people. Those are not the actions of a smart or competent politician.

Remember Dope, we banned a bunch of their companies from producing military type equipment for a good time. Germany learned to achieve its foreign policy goals without military, because, face it, military is part of foreign policy. How long ago did the tow halves get back together? So it's not like Germany wants to project power - nobody want a powerful German Army again.

BMW used to produce aircraft.

Germany doesn't want an empire, Russia does want an empire.

At any rate. EU countries need to foot their share of the defense bill.
They're not.

That's why you aren't in charge of foreign policy. I think there will always be some stragglers.

Hahahahaha. We have vaccines because if Trump. More died under Biden than Trump.

The economy was far better, inflation wasn’t burying working people and the world wasn’t on fire. Biden is a complete failure as President.

And it's almost laughable to see how all these liberals continuously underestimate how little the sort of things they criticize him for matter to his base.

I don't laugh at it. After Jan 6, when full realization hit as to what Trump had done, I didn't expect for Trump to be able to continue on. I mean for Chrissake the man tried to stay in power by illegal means and didn't mind if people got hurt. So it's like sitting in a bus where half the people are in favor of driving the bus over a cliff. Are ya crazy?

But actually if y'all get Trump reelected before any convictions, I'll be very saddened and hope we can recover, but fear we can't. But I'll still make the best of the last years of my life. Sad though.

And this is why people like you pay way over MSRP.

DeSantis was all the policy wins + competency

I don't think he's competent. Albaby seemed to say that prior Govs were very good and concerned administrators so he's have to screw up badly to get the government running poorly. I think he knows what he's talking about.

I am starting to see this "getting closer" argument offered as a defense from mean old Trump hurting NATO's feelings.

You should realize that "getting close" is a meaningless statement allowing the person hearing it to read into it whatever warm and cuddly impression he needs to feel.

It actually isn't meaningless -

<snip> WIKI
Wales Pledge

For the first time, the Allies formally pledged to aim to move towards what had previously been an informal guideline based on Article 3 of spending 2% of their gross domestic products on defense, and 20% of that on new equipment.[21] For countries which spend less than 2% they agreed upon that these countries "aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade".[9] This pledge was the brainchild of US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel. In 2015, five of its 28 members met that goal.[22][23][24] In the aftermath of the pledge, defense spending increased among NATO members.[25] At the beginning of 2018, eight of the 29 members either were meeting the target or were close to it; six others had laid out plans to reach the target by 2024 as promised; and Norway and Denmark had unveiled plans to substantially boost defense spending (including Norway's planned purchase 52 new F-35 fighter jets).[26] <snip>

A pledge isn't hard and fast and I know of no enforcement mechanism. Here's the budget part of the pledge:

<Point 14 in the pledge, link below>
14. We agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets, to make the most
effective use of our funds and to further a more balanced sharing of costs and
responsibilities. Our overall security and defence depend both on how much we spend
and how we spend it. Increased investments should be directed towards meeting our
capability priorities, and Allies also need to display the political will to provide
required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed. A strong defence
industry across the Alliance, including a stronger defence industry in Europe and
greater defence industrial cooperation within Europe and across the Atlantic, remains
essential for delivering the required capabilities. NATO and EU efforts to strengthen
defence capabilities are complementary. Taking current commitments into account,
we are guided by the following considerations:

o Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of
their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so.
Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major
equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.

o Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level
will:

 halt any decline in defence expenditure;
 aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
 aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to
meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability
shortfalls.

o Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on
major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim,
within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total
defence expenditures.

o All Allies will:
4
 ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed
guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output
metrics;

 ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively,
including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and
doctrines.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/...

I also found this:

Abstract

Do informal international agreements without coercive mechanisms affect states’ behavior? While scholars have long been interested in this question, answering it often poses empirical challenges, particularly in the arena of international security. By asking and answering a narrower question—Is NATO’s Wales Pledge on defense spending working?—I can empirically test the extent to which states have adhered to a public agreement without formal or coercive enforcement mechanisms. I argue that the Wales Pledge has led to higher spending because NATO the organization uniquely enables allies to influence one another’s defense planning, publicly and privately. I find support for this argument by interrogating disaggregated defense expenditures of NATO and EU members, and by comparing NATO allies Denmark and Norway with non-allies Finland and Sweden. Although the Wales Pledge has been maligned, it served its purpose by encouraging allies to spend more on defense, particularly on equipment modernization.

https://academic.oup.com/isp/advance-article-abstr...

Now it's normal that if there is nothing going on for any treaty, defense agreement, pledge, etc., that it gets weeds, mold, gets stale, and we have to spruce it up if anything happens. Each country in Europe is like a US state, and there's no enforcement mechanism. It's normal to have stragglers, expect it.

What isn't normal is the right's endorsement of not supporting Ukraine. What is your position on this Mike? We moved from a direct invasion of a NATO country to a proxy war with Russia, the bad actor. The right seems to have a love affair with Putin and Russia. I've had Russian friends and workmates.

I'm familiar with all of the normal excuses for not supporting Ukraine, they are all rationalizations.

Trump is reminding the delinquent NATO member countries, in his typical blunt style, what the meaning of 'Commitment" is. These obligations are real, and not to be dismissed like school loans.

Obama was able to get them to invest more and wasn't an asshole about it - didn't make our friends and allies question our leadership and trustworthiness. It isn't a blunt style, it's an asshole style. What the man said recently is schoolboy asshole stuff.

...in his typical blunt style...

OK, I guess this is the way Trumpers now excuse every awful thing that Trump says. He's just being 'blunt' when he calls military personnel losers, just being blunt when he mocks the disabled, etc. Just being blunt.

You Trumpers can excuse anything and everything Trump says or does no matter how awful. He shot someone on 5th Ave? Oh, that's just Trump being Trump.

And this is why people like you pay way over MSRP.

As expected, totally irrelevant.

But actually if y'all get Trump reelected before any convictions, I'll be very saddened and hope we can recover, but fear we can't. But I'll still make the best of the last years of my life. Sad though. - Lapsody

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

Despair not, old friend. Our country is strong, strong enough to survive even another four years of a Trump presidency.

Despair not, old friend. Our country is strong, strong enough to survive even another four years of a Trump presidency.

But it will be on the decline. Electing a Trump once can be an anomaly - twice, and our trust/respect level drops around the world.

From Wales Pledge via Lapsody (preserving the bolding you applied):

 aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to
meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability
shortfalls.

Apply a little critical thinking to the above,

Imagine a NATO member who sets absolutely still for 9 years, and then adds a small increment in year 10.

Has that member met the requirements of the pledge? Yes he has. The pledge is to move towards, it says nothing about attaining.

Nope. Perfectly relevant.
America is being taken advantage of, and you’re cool with it.

Heh. Take a look at Germany’s expenditures. They kind of shoot down what the left has been saying the entire thread.

Under Obama, they didn’t spend anything.

Under Trump, the number comes up.

And then Biden…the number dips.

Nope. Perfectly relevant.
America is being taken advantage of, and you’re cool with it.

Nope. Irrelevant. And your accusation is incorrect as usual.

“Ich bin ein Berliner.”
—John F. Kennedy,
June 26, 1963

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”
—Ronald Reagan,
June 12, 1987

“I would encourage [the Russians] to do whatever the hell they want.”
—Donald Trump,
February 10, 2024

So do you pay full sticker? If you negotiate like you post I’m sure you pay the full boat.

What isn't normal is the right's endorsement of not supporting Ukraine. What is your position on this Mike? We moved from a direct invasion of a NATO country to a proxy war with Russia, the bad actor. - Lapsody

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

Support Ukraine, sure, that's easy and for all the good reasons mentioned here. What is hard for me is assigning this (and even Israel) a higher priority than it deserves.

I will say again, both of these causes are righteous and deserve our support. However, we must allow that problems having at least equal priority, are possible to exist. We can debate what those might be. But I think the staggering problems at the southern border and the flood of immigrants overwhelming our cities, is one of them.

So what I do hope happens? I hope Ukraine and Israel get their funding. And I also hope the American people get the border security they deserve, something they have been pretty clear on.

It looks like the weak Senate leadership will allow cloture on the so-called clean funding bill (Ukraine, Israel, Red Sea, but NO border security). When that gets over to the House, I hope they staple HR2 to it and send it right back. If there ever was a time to treat the southern border with at least equal urgency as foreign interests, that time is now. Dig in your heels, house republicans, and deliver the deal you promised, Ukraine funding in exchange for border security. Real security, not the watered-down, self-cancelling version that couldn't even make it out of the Senate.

If demanding border security is conservatives abandoning Ukraine, then demanding a clean bill is democrats abandoning the significant American interest of border security.

Both Sides of Both Houses need to keep negotiating. Right up to election day if necessary and then we will find out what the American people think about it.


The right seems to have a love affair with Putin and Russia. - Lapsody

Russia worship has been an often used liberal construct but never has been reflective of conservative reality. To keep using it is becoming just plain lame.

If it went up under Trump it was because of all Obama's hard work.

No it wasn’t, as we see when Biden came in.

You guys drive the oppose of a hard bargain. Doormats do better than democrats securing deals.

It looks like the weak Senate leadership will allow cloture on the so-called clean funding bill (Ukraine, Israel, Red Sea, but NO border security). When that gets over to the House, I hope they staple HR2 to it and send it right back. If there ever was a time to treat the southern border with at least equal urgency as foreign interests, that time is now. Dig in your heels, house republicans, and deliver the deal you promised, Ukraine funding in exchange for border security. Real security, not the watered-down, self-cancelling version that couldn't even make it out of the Senate.

Tying the two together is a Senate idea, not the House. Spending Bills start in the House by the Constitution, but now - both places. If you tack on HR2, there's no chance of passing. So I take it you like to go nowhere? That's where your border bill will be. Your choice. The time to treat it with equal urgency has passed - so the border goes nowhere - that choice was thrust upon you so Trump could use it for his campaign.

Russia worship has been an often used liberal construct but never has been reflective of conservative reality. To keep using it is becoming just plain lame.

WAPO: In the same poll, YouGov asked respondents whether they thought that Putin and Biden were strong leaders. Overall, Americans were twice as likely to say that Putin was a very or somewhat strong leader as they were to say the same of Biden. Among Democrats, both Putin and Biden were seen equivalently. Republicans were 10 times as likely to describe Putin as strong as they were Biden.

But favorability was lower.

So do you pay full sticker? If you negotiate like you post I’m sure you pay the full boat.

Insults? Sure to get an answer that way/

No it wasn’t, as we see when Biden came in.

That was caused by the delayed Trump effect, which finally filtered through after Trump was gone.

LOL. Straws, keep grasping at them.

The data is clear. Did you even look at it?

Apply a little critical thinking to the above,

aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to
meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability
shortfalls.

Through the NDPP, NATO identifies the capabilities that it requires, and promotes their development and acquisition by Allies.
The NDPP provides a framework within which Allies harmonise their national defence plans with those of NATO, without compromising their national sovereignty.
The NDPP apportions requirements to each Ally as Capability Targets on the basis of a fair share of the overall requirement, facilitates their implementation and regularly assesses progress.

So for critical thinking analysis, the questions would be-

Has your hypothetical ever happened? No. What are the probabilities it could happen?

What are the most common reasons for a shortfall?
Are there any extenuating circumstances? Undue hardships?

What are the NDPP assessments regarding these shortfalls?

The pledge isn't to make one minor incremental move in 10 years, the pledge is to implement and increase in investment and over 10 years reach the 2% of GDP level. I would think the biggest reason is not wanting to deal with the budget pain.

the pledge is to implement and increase in investment and over 10 years reach the 2% of GDP level. = Lapsody

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

Perhaps... but that is not the wording in the pledge

It says move towards, not reach. There is a difference.

Words mean things. Identifying weasel words is a useful skill..

I'm not interested in solely Germany. You have a fixation there. I'm interested in the overall picture. Looking only at Germany only tells yiou about Germany.

I'm not interested in solely Germany. You have a fixation there. I'm interested in the overall picture. Looking only at Germany only tells yiou about Germany.

Germany is their biggest economy. Why wouldn't you wonder about them?

Perhaps... but that is not the wording in the pledge

It says move towards, not reach. There is a difference.

Look Mike, remember me saying this?

A pledge isn't hard and fast and I know of no enforcement mechanism.

What do you think that means?

They write the pledge that way deliberately – it isn’t hard and fast like a contract. Capiche?
There isn’t any enforcement mechanism (no way to enforce it) If this was a contract weasel words might apply, but this is the way pledges between countries are written. All bodies have books of how to phrase things from the specific to the general. The climate pledges are written the same way. You’ll just have to understand that when you are dealing with countries at this level in areas like this, it’s NOT HARD AND FAST, like a contract spelling out what will happen each year. This isn’t a contractor with target dates and percentages of completion and a drop dead date where you start losing your profit.

I’m very much aware of what the words mean. They are descriptions of loose goals and requirements that have no SPECIFIC schedule, no ABSOLUTE target dates, i.e., not hard and fast. And as for your hypothetical – I don’t even think you have to do the one thing at the last minute. But the other countries might get upset with you. Tired, adios.

Germany is their biggest economy. Why wouldn't you wonder about them?

Why would you continue to bother me after I've told you I'm not interested?

I'm only interested in Germany as part of the group. And I'm not interested one bit in you reading tea leaves about Trump.

Adios.

Doormats do better than democrats securing deals.

LOL. Trump was every dictator's patsy. We all know he would sell his own daughter if the price was right.

"strong leader" is MAGA code for "we want a fascist dictator".

You’re not interested in Germany paying its NATO bills? How odd.

You’re not interested in Germany paying its NATO bills? How odd.

Not right now. Can you explain to me why you and BHM think Ukraine should be funded and you haven't written your Congressman about it?

Can you explain to me why you and BHM think Ukraine should be funded

Already have.

you haven't written your Congressman about it?

My Congresscritter is Pramila Jayapal. She knows when to do what she's told:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics...

Please post the letter you wrote your representatives.

Not right now. Can you explain to me why you and BHM think Ukraine should be funded and you haven't written your Congressman about it? - lapsody

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

I am still holding out for Border Security, it is far too early for Congress to give up without debate. Get back to work.... Ukraine, Border we can do both or at least flush out the weak hands in time to reflect that in our votes.

a “stupid thing to say.” -Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

“uncalled for.” " -Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.)

“it’s the kind of comment that makes Joe Biden look clear-headed.'“should send a chill up everyone’s spine,” “lacking moral clarity.” -Nikki Haley, R.

“...absolutely inappropriate, consistent with his love for dictators,” -Chris Christie, R.

"“No sane American President would encourage Putin to attack our NATO allies. No honorable American leaders would excuse or endorse this,” -Liz Cheney, R.

“When he says he wants to get out of NATO, I think it’s a very real threat, and it will have dramatically negative implications for the United States, not just in the North Atlantic, but worldwide,” -John Bolton, R.

"This is an example of the left not understanding Trump's style..." -bighairymike, MAGA.

This is an example of the left not understanding Trump's style..." -bighairymike, MAGA. - sano

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

a “stupid thing to say.” -Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

“uncalled for.” " -Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.)

I agree with these two....


“it’s the kind of comment that makes Joe Biden look clear-headed.'“should send a chill up everyone’s spine,” “lacking moral clarity.” -Nikki Haley, R.

Just politics, an act of an increasingly desperate campaign



“...absolutely inappropriate, consistent with his love for dictators,” -Chris Christie, R.

Christie had to attack Trump to have any chance in the primary. It appears his campaign rhetoric has metastasized into a full on case of TDS. It is not surprising that Christie is the favored republican candidate by the libs if they have to choose one.

As for Cheney and Bolton, they are not exactly admired in conservative circles for their staunch conservatism.

You should do something in that area. You either believe in democracy or you don't. Polls indicate ~40% of Republicans doesn't believe in democracy, would rather have authoritarian (assume white) rule. Do you consider yourself a Republican or an independent?

I just got here. Went to the local Dem office and will be out shoring up the Dem vote when they ask, but I don't know local politics at all. Getting out there is tedious, but it's part of get out the vote. I contribute. I'll write to them even if they are Republican.

It's the independent vote that matters on November.

bighairymike: “...absolutely inappropriate, consistent with his love for dictators,” -Chris Christie, R.

Christie had to attack Trump to have any chance in the primary. It appears his campaign rhetoric has metastasized into a full on case of TDS.

Umm.

TRUMP: "He [Kim Jong-un] wrote me beautiful letters and we fell in love. No, really."

TRUMP: "We [Trump and China's President Xi Jinping] love each other."

The derangement is the Trump Cult's, not Christie's.

I am still holding out for Border Security, it is far too early for Congress to give up without debate. Get back to work....

It's not going to happen. The fact that Trump came out against the bill before any language was released is a pretty clear indication that he will oppose any border security bill. It's also pretty likely that Johnson won't bring any border bill to the House floor, either.

Given that, there's no space for negotiators to work. No one's going to spend time, and political capital, negotiating and honing a DOA bill.

I am still holding out for Border Security, it is far too early for Congress to give up without debate. Get back to work.... Ukraine, Border we can do both or at least flush out the weak hands in time to reflect that in our votes.

Now's not the time to hold out. Ukraine needs the funds, they've already shut off pensioners and we stopped shipping ammo. You are talking as if we are deal makers, we're not deal makers. We're just tiny minor cogs in a wheel in the tail end of this beast. We virtually have no effect at all. Almost none. That hand written letter, or a fleeting interview, and that vote are all we've got. Please consider writing your Congressman.

Yeah, it's dead until we get a majority in the House and 60 in the senate. And then wait for the howling when people like Johnson don't get any say.

I think it was Langford (R) who said that not only did they throw him under the bus for his work on the negotiation, but then they backed the bus over him again.

All because they couldn't stand the thought of progress under a Democrat administration. Even though they could have claimed "look what we made the Dems swallow!". McConnell would have done it. Boehner would have done it. An easy spin for them.

As for Cheney and Bolton, they are not exactly admired in conservative circles for their staunch conservatism.

Oh, please elaborate.

~40% of Republicans doesn't believe in democracy, would rather have authoritarian (assume white) rule. Do you consider yourself a Republican or an independent?

I see. So Republicans want a Klan government that's a dictatorship.
So nearly half the opposition party wants a racist authoritarian state? That's your view?

BTW, was Trump running a racist authoritarian state the last time out? I don't recall one.

It's the independent vote that matters on November.

Indeed!

Here's an NPR page for you. It won't hurt your brain:
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/07/1229500337/poll-202...
Biden is underperforming with lots of key groups.

He won independents in 2020, according to exit polls, but loses them in this survey by 8 points to Trump. Biden won women by 15 points in 2020, but only leads by 4 with them in this poll.

Plus, just 57% of Black voters, 38% of Latinos and only 30% of those 18 to 29 approve of the job he's doing, the lowest of any age bracket. In 2020, Biden won almost 9 in 10 Black voters, two-thirds of Latinos and roughly 60% of young voters.

When it comes to his handling of immigration, Latinos give Biden an abysmal 27% approval.

All because they couldn't stand the thought of progress under a Democrat administration. Even though they could have claimed "look what we made the Dems swallow!". McConnell would have done it. Boehner would have done it. An easy spin for them.

It was a bad bill. We covered ad nauseum why that was.
Boehner and McConnell aren't fond AT ALL of the conservatives in the party.

I see. So Republicans want a Klan government that's a dictatorship.
So nearly half the opposition party wants a racist authoritarian state? That's your view?

No. First 40%, get it right. Klans old school. The polls seem to show that 18% of Americans, and ~40% of Republicans are favorably disposed to an authoritarian government. Some go as high as 75%, but I doubt it.

It was a bad bill. We covered ad nauseum why that was.

No, it wasn't. We covered why it was the best deal you're gonna get - and that is gone. Enjoy your border.

"I want to sell cars to the board's libs. Bet I could get them to....blah blah blah "

I'd take that bet with a disgruntled old man who's posting his blind-partisan rants all day long that nobody is buying.

No. First 40%, get it right. Klans old school. The polls seem to show that 18% of Americans, and ~40% of Republicans are favorably disposed to an authoritarian government. Some go as high as 75%, but I doubt it.

I see. So almost half of Republicans want a racist fascist state.

Interesting. What about democrats? Are they champions of democracy?

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was. It gave up nothing to border hawks.

We covered why it was the best deal you're gonna get

Because you didn't really want to compromises. I offered several options and to a man and a woman on this site, every one of you turned them all down. Which was interesting, because some of you kept ranting about "compromise" and "negotiation" but when it came time to offer up something even in a cost-free environment such as this one, you couldn't do it.

Yeah...instead of a limit of 5000 per day, it's unlimited each and every day. Apparently in perpetuity. Because that's the law as written today.

Yeah...instead of a limit of 5000 per day

A week ago you guys were insisting that it *wasn't* 5,000 a day and that anyone who said it was essentially locking in 150k a month was pushing disinformation.

No. It wasn't.

It gave nothing Dems wanted. Zip. Except for Ukraine aid. It may not have given the "hawks" what they wanted, but the Dems did most of the giving on this one. Because the Rep negotiators knew they had leverage. And they used it. Dems weren't happy, 'hawks' weren't happy...sounds like compromise. The point is now moot. We will have unlimited asylum requests for the foreseeable future, and no way to stop it. The left-most of the Dem party is very happy about that. Congrats, MAGA.

As I recall, a poster actually did the math. It was a lot less than 150K per month. I just remember the trigger point. Sue me.

I have better things to do than dig up the post and regurgitate the math, especially since the bill is dead. The point is, there is NO LIMIT now. There would have been, but there isn't. Hope you're happy. The extreme left wing is.

It gave nothing Dems wanted.

You mean other than
1. Locking in the level of illegal immigration in at record levels?
2. Providing work permits for asylum seekers?
3. Upping the number of judges, to faster process asylees into the country?

And more. I'd say you got plenty.

#3 is just good sense. They're here, better to process them more quickly, and remove those ineligible as fast as possible. Really, nobody wants them hanging out for years awaiting hearings. Not Dems, not Reps.

For #2, it's either work permits or welfare. Or detention (which is basically welfare; providing for their needs). They're here legally, so you gotta choose one.

#1 didn't "lock in" anything. There were supposed to be limits, where currently there are NONE. And there will continue to be none now. So the "record levels" will be meaningless. A million people could show up tomorrow, and we'd have to process ALL OF THEM. No limits apply.

As I recall, a poster actually did the math. It was a lot less than 150K per month. I just remember the trigger point. Sue me.

He didn't do it right. Nothing happened until the rolling average hit 5,000/day. If the rolling average was 4,999 per day then nothing was triggered. There was a provision that allowed DHS to do something if it hit 4,000/day.

The correct number is zero/day.

Hope you're happy.

It was a bad bill. Remember, the democrats loudly chanted THERE IS NO CRISIS AT THE BORDER REPUBLICANS ARE LYING for nearly 3 years before reading recent polls on the subject. That's the only reason Schumer negotiated at all.

1. Locking in the level of illegal immigration in at record levels?

That represents a complete misunderstanding of the bill. The triggers were based on encounters, not admissions. When the border patrol encountered 5,000 people in a day, it would count - even if every single one of them was immediately deported under expedited removal processes. It didn't "lock" anything in. It wasn't based on the number of people getting something positive from immigration authorities, just the number of people encountered. It just described the circumstances when the draconian provision of not even accepting asylum requests would kick in.

3. Upping the number of judges, to faster process asylees into the country?

And to faster process them out of the country. Again, the problem is that you have all these folks pending a final hearing that get to stay in the country. The faster you get them to hearing, the faster you can deport the ones who don't qualify for asylum. This addresses the conservative complaint and theory of immigration, namely that these folks are being attracted by the multi-year waiting period even if they know they can't prevail on their asylum claims.

To say nothing of adding more funding for border patrol, more funding for detention facilities, and revising the criteria for the initial credible fear so that a much larger proportion of folks would be subject to immediate and summary deportation without getting a chance for even an immigration hearing. Nothing on a path to citizenship for DREAMERs or DACA or DAPA.

Yeah....I'd say that conservatives got plenty. More than they've seen in any immigration proposal in the last 30 years, and more than they'll see in any immigration proposal for another several Congresses or more.

From CO's collection of favorite Trump quotes,

TRUMP: "He [Kim Jong-un] wrote me beautiful letters and we fell in love. No, really."

TRUMP: "We [Trump and China's President Xi Jinping] love each other."

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

More examples of libs not getting Trumps sense of humor. Only the most deranged could actually believe Trump literally loves Xi or Kim, when it is common knowledge that Trump only has eyes for Putin, or Pootie as he calls him when they are alone.

That represents a complete misunderstanding of the bill. The triggers were based on encounters, not admissions. When the border patrol encountered 5,000 people in a day, it would count - even if every single one of them was immediately deported under expedited removal processes. It didn't "lock" anything in. It wasn't based on the number of people getting something positive from immigration authorities, just the number of people encountered. It just described the circumstances when the draconian provision of not even accepting asylum requests would kick in.

You guys are forgetting what the word "Trigger" means: It means that none of teh bill's enhanced security measures took effect until and unless those levels were hit. You could have 4,999 encounters a day and stay below the averages and nothing would change.

The difference is that this number is codified in law and ties the hands of any President who wanted to declare an emergency along the border.

And to faster process them out of the country.
Sorry, Biden won't do this.

More than they've seen in any immigration proposal in the last 30 years

Which tells you something about how willing democrats are to actually talk about border security, doesn't it?

...and more than they'll see in any immigration proposal for another several Congresses or more. Which also tells you A LOT about how the democrats view this issue.

The reasons the democrats came to the table at all are as follows:

1. They wanted more money for Ukraine
2. Blue city Mayors let them have it
3. They're getting decimated in the polls

It wasn't for any altruistic reasons.

Trump has no sense of humor.

I'm not qualified to diagnose, but I'd hazard a guess that he's a sociopath. I don't believe sociopaths are capable of humor.

Given that, there's no space for negotiators to work. No one's going to spend time, and political capital, negotiating and honing a DOA bill. - Albaby

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

You are most likely correct but what the heck, if there ever was a time to dig in their heels, it is now for the house republicans. If domestic border security is at least as important as Ukraine, then they go together, and if there can be only one, then let it be border security.

The much ballyhoo'ed Power of the Purse is useless if your opposition knows you lack the will to use it. Let's find out!

The difference is that this number is codified in law and ties the hands of any President who wanted to declare an emergency along the border.

So what?

At least it's a number. Right now any President's hands are tied no matter what. If a caravan of 10 million people show up, he (or she) can do NOTHING. The bill had a number where he/she could do something. Because the bill died, there will continue to be no number at all. Not 5000, not 50,000,000. No number.

And it doesn't matter why anyone came to the table. Only the fact that they did. And MAGA screwed the pooch (and themselves, because now there is no number ever). As I've said before, I can live with it better than you can (based on your writings). And the far-left wing is delighted at the result (they hated this bill).

So what?
so that makes it primarily a political exercise to hamstring a future Trump or other border hawk Presidency.

Enough of this MAGA this, MAGA that stuff. The democrats' Open Borders contingent has gotten what they've wanted for a long time and now the bill is due. Literally nobody is blaming Trump for the present situation, no matter how hard the White House tries and the media tries to gaslight for them.

Their record is clear, and it sucks. And hopefully they pay dearly for it in 9 months.

The difference is that this number is codified in law and ties the hands of any President who wanted to declare an emergency along the border.

How does it tie their hands? They don't have the ability to violate the asylum laws now, emergency or not. Right now, every single person who gets encountered by the Border Patrol has the right to assert a defensive asylum claim. Declaring an emergency on the border doesn't change that - which is one of the (many) reasons why Trump never did that, despite encounters skyrocketing to nearly a million during the last year before the pandemic.

The reasons the democrats came to the table at all are as follows:

1. They wanted more money for Ukraine
2. Blue city Mayors let them have it
3. They're getting decimated in the polls

It wasn't for any altruistic reasons.

So what? That's why the GOP was able to get an almost-entirely enforcement bill teed up in the Senate. Biden was in a position where he both wanted to shove that bill down the throats of the pro-immigrant faction in the party, and the political circumstances where he could force them to swallow it without killing it. Because he wanted something outside of immigration (Ukraine and Israel aid) and the GOP had successfully managed to link them. That was the whole point - Abbott dealt Congressional Republicans a winning hand to finally force the Democrats to make concessions on immigration without any of their normal "deal-breakers," especially the DREAMERs.

Those circumstances only come around once every generation or two....and the GOP blew it. They successfully maneuvered the Democrats into having to make major concessions on immigration in order to get the Ukraine funding, despite there being a sizable proportion (more than a dozen) of Senators who strongly support Ukraine funding. And then they blew it up to get nothing.

Now's not the time to hold out. Ukraine needs the funds, they've already shut off pensioners and we stopped shipping ammo. - Lapsody

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

I agree with you mostly but what I don't agree with is that Ukraine funding is more important or more urgent than domestic border security.

Our leaders will take the path of least resistance if allowed. Any that prioritize domestic security as a secondary priority need to be flushed out and replaced.

"This is an example of the left not understanding Trump's style..." -bighairymike, MAGA.

The cult will excuse anything and everything awful that Trump does or says.

After all, 60% of Republicans still think Trump won the 2020 election, something that is patently and demonstrably false.

This devotion to Trump is baffling.

You are most likely correct but what the heck, if there ever was a time to dig in their heels, it is now for the house republicans.

I would tend to agree. I don't think it will happen. Johnson is cowed by Trump (just my impression of him), and as an article I read explained, he is showing both his inexperience and his inability to control the "Freedom Caucus" within his ranks. Though, to be fair, the far-right is really difficult to control. They ousted the last speaker. Johnson is a novice compared to the last several speakers we have had (both Rep and Dem). Frankly, I don't think he's up to the job.

I expect no movement on the border for a LOOOOOOOONG time. Not unless you get a trifecta and 60 votes in the Senate. Otherwise, MAGA let this chance slip through the fingers. Heck, they spat on it and tossed it back.

All because they couldn't stand the thought of progress under a Democrat administration.

Even more to the point, Trump wants to keep the chaos going to help him politically, so he told his minions in the erstwhile GOP not to pass the law.

How does it tie their hands?

If a Trump or a DeSantis wanted to close the border for any reason, it's a simple matter to lawfare it back open via a friendly judge.

This legislation allows that.

So what? So what? The core of this "MAGA Republicans shot this down" is an appeal for better border control. That's nonsense, the democrats absolutely do not want that.

That's why the GOP was able to get an almost-entirely enforcement bill teed up in the Senate. We disagree on that descriptor vehemently. It wasn't about security; if it was:

1. There would be no remanding all immigration cases to a democrat-friendly US Circuit Court of Appeals
2. There would have been no extra green cards nor work authorizations
3. There would have been no bailout money for blue cities

It was far from a security bill. Let's not claim that it was.

Those circumstances only come around once every generation or two.

And why is this? We both know why: The democrats want an open border. If they didn't, the above statement would be untrue.

No, it was MAGA. They nuked it.

Ironically, you (and others) moan about the "open borders contingent". MAGA just gave them a gift. They were set to lose BIGLY. But now there is no change at the border. You complain about the number, but it was a finite number. So we will continue to have no limit, except the future population of the Earth. The entire human population could show up, and there is NO LEVER to stop it. Or even slow it down. Thanks to MAGA.

The "open borders contingent" is likely giddy. They should at least send you a 'thank you' card.

As for Cheney and Bolton, they are not exactly admired in conservative circles for their staunch conservatism.

An absolutely absurd statement. They are both staunch conservatives.

I think what you meant to say: As for Cheney and Bolton, they are not exactly admired in the Trump cult.

You are most likely correct but what the heck, if there ever was a time to dig in their heels, it is now for the house republicans. If domestic border security is at least as important as Ukraine, then they go together, and if there can be only one, then let it be border security.

There's a difference between digging in your heels and making it very clear that no deal is possible. And that anyone who tries to negotiate a deal will be blasted politically. There's no doubt that if the House GOP is only offering HR 2 and nothing, there will be no border bill. And now that the Senate knows that there will be no border bill, they're not going to bother negotiating a border bill.

So you end up with the exact opposite of the situation you hope for above. The border bill is dead, and if there can be only one, it will only be Ukraine funding. The likelihood is that no bills pass, of course - but the next most likely outcome is a clean foreign aid bill, and the possibility of a border bill the least likely of all.

And then they blew it up to get nothing.

Yep. Politically speaking, it was a clown show. A rank-amateur move. The politicians in congress 20 years ago would have been more shrewd than that. This latest crop don't seem to know what they're doing, or how politics work. MAGA gave the left-wing a present, and they don't even seem to realize it.

Time to game out next year, and further expose how little the left wing really wants actual border security. This assumes Trump wins.

On his first day, he issues a series of executive orders:
1. States are free to construct barriers along the southern border as they see fit
2. The asylum program is suspended for the near future (or at least administratively modified in such a way as to have applicants do so at a US embassy)
3. Deportations will increase
4. Enforcement of employment laws will increase
5. Crackdowns on voter registrations in states like Arizona that allow illegals to vote in federal elections

Here's what will give the game away: The democrats will sue on every single one of the above. Count on it.

Before someone uses the word "humane", let's do a thought experiment.

What does every single person who came through Ellis Island have in common? Answer: They all came through legally following a process with standards.

What does every single person who cross the US border illegally have in common? Answer: The first act upon reaching their new county is to piss all over its laws.

It was a bad bill. We covered ad nauseum why that was.

LOL...it was a bad bill for TRUMP.

And you really must not have been listening to the very extensive discussion that went on if you believe it was a 'bad bill'. Sheesh.

If a Trump or a DeSantis wanted to close the border for any reason, it's a simple matter to lawfare it back open via a friendly judge.

But how does that tie their hands? They don't have the power to close the border now. It would be illegal for Trump or DeSantis to refuse to allow people to apply for asylum - under any circumstances. The proposed bill would create - for the first time - a set of circumstances where the President would have the new power to refuse to allow people to apply for asylum. A power, again, that the President utterly lacks today.

How does that tie their hands?

It was far from a security bill. Let's not claim that it was.

Except that it would increase funding for the border patrol, increase funding for detention facilities, tighten the criteria for passing a credible fear determination, eliminate the 'benefit' of having years in the U.S. pending the scheduling of an immigration determination, and move many/most immigration determinations out of immigration judges and into administrative staff. You know, solving the problems presented by having all those people waiting around for their hearings.

And why is this? We both know why: The democrats want an open border. If they didn't, the above statement would be untrue.

No - the Democrats don't want an open border, and we don't have an open border. Which, again, is why all of those hundreds of thousands of border patrol encounters don't result in people having lawful status in the United States. The Democrats want the metaphorical "strong fence with a big door," and they think both are necessary in order for the border to serve the interests of the United States. They don't want to shrink the door while making the fence stronger, so they insist on having "door" provisions in every fence bill.

That's why this bill, the first since 1996 that was almost entirely "fence" and virtually no "door" represents a colossal lost opportunity for immigration hawks. They'll not see a better opportunity to move the border more towards their vision of how it should be for a generation or more.

But how does that tie their hands? Besides tying up whatever they wanted to do in federal court?

Other than that?

What does every single person who cross the US border illegally have in common? Answer: The first act upon reaching their new county is to piss all over its laws.

The problem is, there aren't illegal. Mike says he now cringes every time he hears them described as "illegal" because he knows they aren't.

It's a different process than Ellis Island, at least somewhat. But it's entirely legal.

Every other one of your points is either false (e.g. non-citizens cannot vote in Arizona), or will be struck down by the courts. No matter who wins next year, the border cannot (and will not) change without legislative action. It's how our laws, and our Constitution, work. Or don't work, depending on your point of view. We are not yet an authoritarian state, so decrees from the Executive can't fix this problem.

And why is this? We both know why: The democrats want an open border. If they didn't, the above statement would be untrue.

Bullshit.

And now the idiot GOP House has made it clear that THEY want an open border because they think it will help Trump politically.

There are probably almost no democrats who want a truly "open border".

>>As for Cheney and Bolton, they are not exactly admired in conservative circles for their staunch conservatism.<<

Oh, please elaborate. - Lapsody

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

CNN Headline from Aug 2022

Cheney’s loss may be the second worst for a House incumbent in 60 years

... As of Wednesday afternoon, she trailed Hageman by 37.4 points,

1. States are free to construct barriers along the southern border as they see fit
2. The asylum program is suspended for the near future (or at least administratively modified in such a way as to have applicants do so at a US embassy)
3. Deportations will increase
4. Enforcement of employment laws will increase
5. Crackdowns on voter registrations in states like Arizona that allow illegals to vote in federal elections

Number 2 is illegal. It's already been found to be illegal. It was found to be illegal when Trump tried to do it, and it was found to be illegal when Biden tried to do it. It would be shot down in less than a week.

Number 3 is unlikely in the extreme, because the GOP killed this bill. You can't deport without a hearing except in certain statutorily defined circumstances. That's why these folks are hanging around. Because the GOP killed the extra funding for immigration judges, and killed the changes to the hearing process, and killed the changes to the asylum credible fear criteria, Trump can't deport people any faster than Biden (who is already deporting people at a faster rate than Trump).

Number 4 is unlikely in the extreme, because Trump didn't do that the first time around. He didn't prioritize or increase internal employment enforcement.

Number 5 is laughable, because it has things exactly backwards - which is why it can't work. Arizona has the laws it has because it was trying to be tougher on illegals, not make it easier. The federal motor voter law prohibits states from requiring proof of citizenship as a condition to registration. So Arizona tried to get cute and adopt a harsher registration provision - they got around the federal law by applying the requirement to provide proof of citizenship only for state elections, so that the federal law wouldn't apply. They tried to make it harder for people to register to vote without proof of citizenship, and are falsely getting blasted as an example of a state making it easier, for their sins. Without changing the federal voting statute, Trump can't do a thing.

Besides tying up whatever they wanted to do in federal court?

Other than that?

Once more:

They don't have any power now.
The statute would give them some power.
Even if there might be a challenge to the statute in federal court, it's still an improvement over what they have now. Which is nothing.


So it doesn't tie their hands, because their hands are completely tied today by a statute that forbids them from shutting down asylum applications under all circumstances. Passing a law that would let them shut down applications in some circumstances cannot possibly tie their hands.

It gave nothing Dems wanted. Zip. Except for Ukraine aid. It may not have given the "hawks" what they wanted, but the Dems did most of the giving on this one. - 1pg

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

Not much when the cap, good or bad, was self canceling.

If that wasn't included as a poison pill, then what was it?

Every other one of your points is either false (e.g. non-citizens cannot vote in Arizona),

Sorry, I showed you the evidence on this one. You're wrong.

Here's your own state's manual on the subject
https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2023/EPM...

U.S. citizenship must be sworn to when registering to vote. In addition, under Arizona’s bifurcated
or dual-track voter registration system, an acceptable form of documentary proof of citizenship
(DPOC) is required to be registered as a “full-ballot” voter. See Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of
Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013). A “full-ballot” voter is entitled to vote for all federal, state,
county, and local races as well as state and local ballot measures for which the voter qualifies.
Ariz. Atty Gen. Op. I13-011.
An otherwise eligible registrant who does not submit DPOC and whose U.S. citizenship cannot be
verified via AZMVD records or other record in the statewide voter registration database is
registered as a “federal-only” voter. A “federal-only” voter is eligible to vote solely in races for
federal office in Arizona (including the Presidential Preference Election (PPE)).

There.

or will be struck down by the courts

Thank you for making my point for me. democrats will sue in friendly districts, and secure injunctions. Thus proving that they don't give a rip about a secure border.

And since somebody's going to attempt to fight me on this one:
U.S. citizenship must be sworn to when registering to vote. In addition, under Arizona’s bifurcated
or dual-track voter registration system, an acceptable form of documentary proof of citizenship
(DPOC) is required to be registered as a “full-ballot” voter. See Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of
Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013). A “full-ballot” voter is entitled to vote for all federal, state,
county, and local races as well as state and local ballot measures for which the voter qualifies.
Ariz. Atty Gen. Op. I13-011.

An otherwise eligible registrant who does not submit DPOC and whose U.S. citizenship cannot be
verified via AZMVD records or other record in the statewide voter registration database is
registered as a “federal-only” voter. A “federal-only” voter is eligible to vote solely in races for
federal office in Arizona (including the Presidential Preference Election (PPE)).

What this means is that you can be an illegal in Arizona, show up to register to vote, and refuse to provide proof of citizenship.

The helpful Arizona Election Official will say, "Well, thank you for applying. Because you haven't shown any proof of citizenship, I can't let you vote in Arizona elections, but you're good to go otherwise!"

Some here are going to say but it's illeeeegal to vote in federal elections. Sure is. It's also illegal to be in the country illegally, but who cares, amirite?

Arizona is just the 1 state we know about. There are probably others.

Albaby already explained that.

Yes, it is illegal. With actual penalties.

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizen...

It's also illegal to kill someone. That doesn't stop it from happening, but it's punishable. There (so far) has been no evidence that any significant voter fraud or ineligible voters has occurred beyond onesy-twosy votes. Not enough to affect an election.

But, by all means...give every citizen a free ID, and then require that ID to vote. In that order. I'd be all for it, as most people would.

Yes, it is illegal. With actual penalties.

So's speeding and rolling through stop signs.

There (so far) has been no evidence that any significant voter fraud or ineligible voters has occurred beyond onesy-twosy votes. Not enough to affect an election.

How do you know? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

albaby1:Every other one of your points is either false (e.g. non-citizens cannot vote in Arizona)

Dope1: Sorry, I showed you the evidence on this one. You're wrong.

Here's your own state's manual on the subject...and whose U.S. citizenship cannot be verified via AZMVD records or other record in the statewide voter registration database is registered as a “federal-only” voter. A “federal-only” voter is eligible to vote solely in races for federal office in Arizona (including the Presidential Preference Election (PPE)).

No, you're wrong.

Anyone voting as a "federal-only" voter must legally swear they are a U.S. citizen and mark the ballot confirming they are a U.S. citizen. Any non-citizen voting as a "federal only" voter is subject to prosecution.

Since 2010, the Attorney General’s Office has not prosecuted or convicted any non-citizen for illegal voting. There are two pending prosecutions for non-citizens who have either registered or voted in Arizona, according to a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, but the details of those cases aren’t public.

In short, non-citizens don't vote in Arizona.

https://azmirror.com/2023/12/19/arizonas-federal-o...

Anyone voting as a "federal-only" voter must legally swear they are a U.S. citizen and mark the ballot confirming they are a U.S. citizen. Any non-citizen voting as a "federal only" voter is subject to prosecution.


LOL. Right, they'll get right on self-identifying that they're here illegally and in the process of committing another crime.

Next lib, please.

I agree with you mostly but what I don't agree with is that Ukraine funding is more important or more urgent than domestic border security.

Trump killed the border - feel free to advise him on priorities.

Our leaders will take the path of least resistance if allowed. Any that prioritize domestic security as a secondary priority need to be flushed out and replaced.

I agree, Trump prioritized himself over domestic security and he needs to be flushed out and replaced. Glad to have you on board Mike.

There's a difference between digging in your heels and making it very clear that no deal is possible. And that anyone who tries to negotiate a deal will be blasted politically. There's no doubt that if the House GOP is only offering HR 2 and nothing, there will be no border bill. And now that the Senate knows that there will be no border bill, they're not going to bother negotiating a border bill.

So you end up with the exact opposite of the situation you hope for above. The border bill is dead, and if there can be only one, it will only be Ukraine funding. The likelihood is that no bills pass, of course - but the next most likely outcome is a clean foreign aid bill, and the possibility of a border bill the least likely of all. - albaby

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

I know you are right but to drop it before even reaching the Senate floor was not a good faith effort in my estimation. Since it was never debated on the floor of either house, voters are deprived of the opportunity to learn where their representatives stand.

A true compromise would lie somewhere between the Senate proposal and HR2 but that possibility was never explored. As long as both sides can offer a plausible excuse blaming the other guy, then congress is happy to go with that and quickly move on to what really matters.

"I am still holding out for Border Security, it is far too early for Congress to give up without debate. Get back to work.... Ukraine, Border we can do both or at least flush out the weak hands in time to reflect that in our votes.

The weak hands have already been flushed out.

Trump.

He was against anything on border security before he even saw the bill. He knows that without the immigration issue there is zero chance he can beat Biden in the fall so he needs to keep the immigration issue alive until the election. He will not let any immigration bill that does anything substantial through congress.

You will still vote for him though.

where the President would have the new power to refuse to allow people to apply for asylum. A power, again, that the President utterly lacks today. - albaby

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

A power that will expire in three years. If this bill is just so very good for our country, why have one of its key provision self destruct after a short period. It is apparent now it never was the serious effort that it was advertised to be. Just more of the same from a congress that would rather trick their constituents than win their support.

"This is an example of the left not understanding Trump's style...."

OMG.....

I wonder if there is a limit to just how much you would be willing to degrade yourself defending Trump?

I mean, you have made it clear that you are willing to play dumb to the point that you are willing to be laughed at. You have shown you are willing to be lied to. You have demonstrated you are willing to make excuses for sexual assault, fraud, tax evasion for him. You have no problem with him degenerating military service and making fun of people with crippling lifetime injuries.

What would he have to do before you considered not making dumb excuses for him?

Would he have to rape your wife or daughter? Or would that just be boys being boys?
Would he have to steal everything you own? Or would that just be a simple misunderstanding?
Would he have to insult your dead son, brother, or cousin for being dumb enough to go off to fight for the country? Or would that just be more of his sense of humor?

Serious question. What would it take before you would think he is going to far at you are not going to defend it?

The House just effectively killed the Senate bill for Ukraine.

Here's HR2. Notice how there's never anything about why the Senate hasn't picked this up and voted on it?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house...

This bill makes various changes to immigration law, including by imposing limits on asylum eligibility and requiring employers to use an electronic system to verify the employment eligibility of new employees.

There's a lot to like here...IF you're interested in securing the southern border. We know that democrats are not. I've bolded several sections that will make leftists scream.

[1] Cuts off the NGO money spigot and forces asylees to use a port of entry.
[2] Requires DHS to say who is crossing the border and where they're from
[3] Requires DHS to collect biometrics from migrants they're flying around since many don't have documentation
[4] Requires DHS to collect how much money the states are spending
[5] Requires a report on the economic costs to border states and towns
[6] This is for albaby. This one severely restricts who can apply for asylum; you have to come to teh US directly.
[7] You're ineligible for asylum if you have certain crimes on your record
[8] No asylum filing if you've been in the states for a year and haven't filed tax returns
[9] Anti-gaming provision for asylees
[10] Penalties for overstaying a visa
[11] (Another one the left will hate) DHS can't grant parole based on a class of applicants.
[12] e-verify for the workplace
[13] Bigger penalties for knowingly hiring illegal workers
[14] Protections from misuse of Social Security numbers

THIS is what a border bill looks like. Not that other thing.

----------------- Bill Summary follows --------------------------

(Sec. 102) This section requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to resume all activities related to constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border that were underway or planned prior to January 20, 2021.

(Sec. 103) This section imposes additional requirements on DHS related to the construction of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. For example, the bill requires DHS to construct a border wall (including related infrastructure and technology) along at least 900 miles of that border, whereas currently DHS is required to have at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing along that border.

This section also requires DHS to waive all legal requirements necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of the border barriers, whereas currently DHS is authorized to waive such requirements.

(Sec. 104) This section requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to submit a strategic five-year technology investment plan to Congress.

(Sec. 105) This section imposes certain documentation and acquisition-related standards on major border security technology acquisitions, generally those that cost at least $100 million based on FY2023 constant dollars.

(Sec. 106) This section requires CBP to (1) ensure that each CBP officer or agent is equipped with a two-way communication device, (2) fully implement the Border Security Deployment Program (a border surveillance program), and (3) upgrade license plate readers as needed at ports of entry along the northern and southern borders.

(Sec. 107) This section authorizes retention bonuses for eligible frontline U.S. Border Patrol law enforcement agents.

The section also requires CBP to maintain an active duty presence of at least 22,000 full-time equivalent Border Patrol agents by September 30, 2025.

(Sec. 108) This section modifies a provision that exempts certain applicants for CBP law enforcement positions from having to take a polygraph test. For example, this section provides this exemption to certain law enforcement officers, whereas currently the waiver is only available to eligible veterans.

The waiver provision established by this section is not applicable during periods when CBP certifies that it has met certain staffing requirements.

(Sec. 109) This section requires CBP to implement a workload staffing model for the Border Patrol and CBP Air and Marine Operations.

(Sec. 110) This section provides statutory authorization for Operation Stonegarden, a program which provides grants to law enforcement agencies that are (1) in a state with an international land or maritime border, and (2) involved in an active CBP operation coordinated through the Border Patrol.

(Sec. 111) This section establishes certain requirements for CBP Air and Marine Operations. For example, CBP must ensure that its Air and Marine Operations (1) carry out at least 110,000 flight hours each year, and (2) operate unmanned aircraft systems (drones) on the southern border 24 hours a day.

(Sec. 112) This section requires DHS to hire contractors to begin eradicating certain plant growth along the Rio Grande River that impedes border security operations.

(Sec. 113) This section requires the Border Patrol to issue a Border Patrol Strategic Plan to enhance border security.

[1] (Sec. 115) This section prohibits DHS from (1) processing the entry of non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) arriving in between ports of entry; (2) providing funds to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that facilitate or encourage unlawful activity; or (3) providing funds to NGOs that provide certain services, such as lodging or immigration legal services, to inadmissible non-U.S. nationals who enter the United States.

(Sec. 116) This section requires DHS to ensure that CBP is, within 14 days of this bill's enactment, fully compliant with federal DNA and biometric collection requirements at U.S. land borders.

(Sec. 117) This section requires CBP to periodically review and update, as necessary, manuals and policies related to inspections at ports of entry to ensure the uniformity of inspection practices to effectively detect illegal activity along the border, such as the smuggling of drugs and humans.

[2] (Sec. 118) This section requires CBP to publish information monthly about CBP encounters with non-U.S. nationals, including the total number of encounters and the nationalities of the individuals encountered.

(Sec. 119) This section requires CBP to, within seven days of this bill's enactment, certify to Congress that CBP has real-time access to the criminal history databases of all countries of origin and transit for non-U.S. nationals encountered by CBP.

(Sec. 120) This section prohibits the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from accepting as proof of identification certain documents, such as a warrant issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or an employment authorization issued by DHS.

[3] The TSA must collect the biometric information of any individual who (1) seeks to enter the aircraft boarding area of an airport where access is controlled by the TSA, (2) does not present an accepted identification document, and (3) the TSA cannot verify is a U.S. national. The TSA must share this collected biometric information with the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT).

(Sec. 121) This section prohibits DHS from (1) issuing any COVID-19 vaccine mandate unless expressly authorized by Congress, or (2) taking any adverse action against an employee based solely on the employee's refusal to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

(Sec. 122) This section limits the use of the CBP One mobile application or a similar program. Specifically, DHS may only use such an application for inspecting perishable cargo.

[4] (Sec. 124) This section requires the Government Accountability Office to study and report to Congress on the costs incurred by states in support of the federal mission to secure the southwest border and the feasibility of reimbursing states for such costs.

[5] (Sec. 125) This section requires the Office of Inspector General of DHS to annually report to Congress on the economic and security impact of mass migration to municipalities and states along the southwest border.

(Sec. 126) This section specifies that no funds are authorized to be appropriated for specified DHS activities, including a pilot program for alternatives to detention or purchasing electric vehicles.

(Sec. 128) This section requires the Office of Inspector General of DHS to report to Congress an assessment of CBP's ability to mitigate unmanned aircraft systems along the southwest border.

DIVISION B--IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

TITLE I--ASYLUM REFORM AND BORDER PROTECTION

This title imposes additional requirements for asylum eligibility.

(Sec. 101) This section expands provisions that bar certain individuals from applying for asylum.

[6] Currently, an individual may not apply for asylum if that individual may be removed to a third country (i.e., a country that is not the applicant's country of nationality or last habitual residence) if that third country has (1) a full and fair asylum process that the individual could use, and (2) an agreement with the United States allowing for such removals. This section expands this provision by authorizing removal to third countries that do not have an agreement with the United States.

This section also bars an individual from applying for asylum if the individual traveled through at least one third country before arriving in the United States, with certain exceptions (e.g., the individual applied for and was denied asylum in that third country).

(Sec. 102) This section modifies the standard for establishing an asylum applicant's credible fear of persecution.

Specifically, to find credible fear, an asylum officer must find that the applicant could more likely than not establish eligibility for asylum. Currently, an asylum officer must conclude that there is a significant possibility that the applicant could establish eligibility for asylum.

(Sec. 103) This section limits asylum eligibility to individuals who arrived in the United States at a port of entry.

[7] (Sec. 104) This section expands the types of crimes that may make an individual ineligible for asylum, such as a conviction for (1) a misdemeanor relating to the unlawful possession or use of an identification, (2) an offense for driving while intoxicated causing another person's serious bodily injury or death, or (3) any felony.

This section further expands this bar to asylum eligibility by broadening the definition of felony to include any crime that is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. (Some states have misdemeanors that are punishable by imprisonment of more than a year.) Currently, a felony is generally not a bar against asylum eligibility, though certain felonies, such as one for a particularly serious crime, would bar an individual if the individual constitutes a danger to the community.

(Sec. 105) This section establishes a duration of six months for an employment authorization for an applicant for asylum. Such an employment authorization may also be renewed for six months or terminated under specified conditions.

(Sec. 106) This section requires DHS to charge a fee for each asylum application, except for one filed by an unaccompanied alien child. Currently, DHS is authorized but not required to charge such fees.

The section also authorizes DHS to charge fees for a refugee's application for employment authorization or for lawful permanent resident status.

(Sec. 107) This section increases the requirements for qualifying as a refugee.

Generally, a refugee must have a well-founded fear of persecution based on certain characteristics, such as the individual's race, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

The section establishes additional requirements for meeting these criteria. For example, such persecution may not be based solely on (1) infrequently enforced laws or government policies unless there is credible evidence that the law or policy would be personally applied to the individual, or (2) conduct of rogue government officials acting outside their official capacity.

Furthermore, to be a member of a particular social group, the asylum applicant must establish that the group exists independently of the alleged acts of persecution (i.e., the group cannot be defined solely as the victims of the alleged persecution).

[8] The section also imposes limits on when DHS or DOJ may exercise discretion in favor of an asylum applicant. For example, favorable discretion may not be exercised, with certain exceptions, for an applicant who (1) has been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year before applying for asylum; or (2) failed to file federal, state, or local tax returns.

(Sec. 108) This section establishes certain situations when an asylum applicant must be considered to have firmly resettled in another country. (Generally, an individual who has firmly resettled in a country that is not their country of nationality is not eligible for asylum.)

For example, an individual must be considered to have firmly resettled in another country if, after the events giving rise to the asylum claim, the individual resided in a country where the individual was eligible for any permanent or indefinitely renewable legal immigration status, such as refugee status.

[9] (Sec. 109) This section establishes a statutory definition of what constitutes a frivolous asylum application, whereas currently this definition is defined in regulations. Under this bill, an application is frivolous if (1) it is so insufficient in substance that it is clear that it was filed to achieve another objective, such as to delay removal; or (2) any material elements are knowingly fabricated.

(Sec. 111) This section requires DOJ to establish procedures to expedite the adjudication of asylum applications from individuals who are (1) subject to formal removal proceedings; and (2) nationals of a Western Hemisphere country subject to sanctions related to Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela.

TITLE II--BORDER SAFETY AND MIGRANT PROTECTION

(Sec. 201) This section expands the category of non-U.S. nationals who are subject to expedited removal (i.e., removal without further hearing or review) and addresses related issues.

Specifically, this section requires expedited removal for individuals who are unlawfully present or who unlawfully entered the United States. (Currently, DHS may, but is not required to, apply expedited removal to unlawfully present individuals who have been physically present in the United States for less than two years.)

This section also requires, with certain exceptions, detention for individuals who (1) are subject to expedited removal, (2) are subject to expedited removal and have expressed an intention to apply for asylum, or (3) have established a credible fear of persecution and are awaiting consideration of an asylum application.

If DHS cannot comply with this detention requirement or remove an individual to a safe third country, DHS must return the individual to the neighboring country that the individual traveled through to reach the United States while the individual's case is pending.

A state may sue DHS to enforce the requirements imposed by this section.

This section also authorizes DHS to suspend the introduction of certain non-U.S. nationals at an international border if DHS determines that the suspension is necessary to achieve operational control of that border.

(Sec. 202) This section requires DHS to take all actions necessary to reopen or restore all ICE detention facilities that were in operation on January 20, 2021.

TITLE III--PREVENTING UNCONTROLLED MIGRATION FLOWS IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

(Sec. 302) This section requires the Department of State to seek to negotiate agreements with Western Hemisphere countries on cooperation and burden sharing on issues related to asylum seekers and immigration.

(Sec. 303) This section requires the State Department to periodically brief Congress on the process of its negotiations pursuant to the previous section of this bill.

TITLE IV--ENSURING UNITED FAMILIES AT THE BORDER

(Sec. 401) This section statutorily establishes that there is no presumption that an alien child (other than an unaccompanied child) should not be detained for immigration purposes.

Specifically, the section states that the detention of such minors shall be governed by specified sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and not any other provision of law, judicial ruling, or settlement agreement.

(A 1997 settlement agreement, commonly known as the Flores agreement, imposes requirements relating to the treatment of detained alien minors, including requiring such minors to be released or placed in a nonsecure facility after a certain amount of time in detention.)

If an adult enters the United States unlawfully with their child, DHS must detain the adult and child together if the only criminal charge against the adult is for unlawful entry.

This section also prohibits states from imposing licensing requirements on immigration detention facilities used to detain minors or families with minors.

TITLE V--PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

(Sec. 502) This section modifies the treatment of unaccompanied alien children, including by requiring DHS to remove such children, with some exceptions, from the United States.

Current law authorizes DHS to remove an unaccompanied alien child to their country of nationality or last habitual residence if that country is next to the United States. This section (1) eliminates the requirement that the country is next to the United States; and (2) requires DHS to remove the child, whereas currently DHS is authorized to do so.

This section also authorizes immigration officers to permit such a child to withdraw their application for admission into the United States even if the child is unable to make an independent decision to withdraw the application.

This section also establishes and modifies deadlines for the handling of unaccompanied alien children. For example, if the child is a victim of a severe form of human trafficking or has a credible fear of persecution, the child must be placed in formal removal proceedings and have a hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of screening.

Furthermore, before DHS places an unaccompanied alien child with an individual, the Department of Health and Human Services must provide DHS with certain information about the individual, including the individual's social security number and immigration status. DHS must initiate removal proceedings if the individual is unlawfully present.

(Sec. 503) This section tightens the eligibility requirements for Special Immigrant Juvenile visas (immigrant visas for qualifying non-U.S. nationals under 21 years of age who are in the United States and have been abused, abandoned, or neglected by a parent).

Currently, an otherwise eligible individual may qualify for the visa if the individual cannot reunite with one or both parents due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment (i.e., an individual may qualify even if reunification with one parent is possible). Under this section, an individual shall not qualify for the visa if reunification is possible with any parent or legal guardian.

TITLE VI--VISA OVERSTAYS PENALTIES

(Sec. 601) This section increases the civil penalties for unlawful entry into the United States and establishes criminal penalties for overstaying a visa.

An individual apprehended while unlawfully entering the United States shall be subject to a fine of at least $500 and up to $1,000 (currently at least $50 and up to $250).

[10] If an individual overstays a visa (or otherwise fails to comply with the conditions of a visa) for 10 days or more, on first offense the individual shall be subject to fines or imprisonment for up to six months, or both. For subsequent violations, the individual shall be subject to fines or imprisonment of up to two years, or both.

TITLE VII--IMMIGRATION PAROLE REFORM

[11](Sec. 701) This section limits the authority of DHS to grant parole (temporary admission into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit that is granted on a case-by-case basis).

Under this section, DHS may not grant parole based on eligibility criteria describing an entire class of potential parole recipients.

This section restricts DHS from granting parole to non-U.S. nationals who are already in the United States, with specified exceptions, such as for certain individuals who already have an approved petition for a family-sponsored visa and are the spouse or child of an active duty member of the Armed Forces.

The section further restricts the authority of DHS to grant parole, including by limiting (1) what constitutes granting parole on a case-by-case basis, (2) the authority to grant parole to purposes laid out in the section, and (3) the length of the parole period that may be granted to an individual.

(Sec. 702) This title takes effect 30 days after enactment of this bill, with specified exceptions.

(Sec. 703) This section authorizes persons (individuals or entities), states, and local governments to sue the federal government for failing to comply with this title's requirements if the person or government bringing the lawsuit suffered at least $1,000 of financial harm as a result of the failure.

TITLE VIII--LEGAL WORKFORCE

[12] This title requires employers to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system modeled after the E-Verify program and addresses other issues related to employment eligibility.

(Sec. 801) This section requires all employers to use the electronic employment eligibility verification system established under section 802 of this bill. The section also makes other changes to the requirements for employers to confirm the identity and employment eligibility of new employees, such as by imposing additional limits on the documents which may be used to verify an individual's identity and employment eligibility.

This section establishes procedures related to the verification system's use. For example, if the system provides a tentative nonconfirmation of an individual's identity or work eligibility, the individual may challenge the result by using the system's secondary verification process. If the individual does not challenge the tentative nonconfirmation, the result shall become final.

An employer may not rescind an employment offer or fire an employee for a tentative nonconfirmation until the result becomes final.

If an employer hires (or does not fire) an individual after a final nonconfirmation of identity or employment eligibility, the employer must inform DHS that it has done so. Failure to inform DHS shall constitute a failure to meet requirements to verify employment eligibility. Hiring or not firing an individual with a final nonconfirmation shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that the employer has failed to meet the eligibility verification requirements.

This section phases in the requirement to use the new system to verify new hires. The first group of employers required to use the system, nonagricultural employers with 10,000 or more U.S. employees, must do so beginning six months after this title's enactment. Employers with fewer employees are subject to later deadlines. Agricultural employers must start using the system beginning three years after this title's enactment. DHS must grant a one-time extension to this deadline upon request to employers with 50 or fewer employees.

Employers must also use the system to reverify individuals on limited periods of work authorization (e.g., a work visa) no later than three days after the authorization expires. This requirement is subject to the same phase-in schedule as the requirement for verifying new hires.

This section also requires employers to use the system to verify the identity and employment eligibility of certain previously hired individuals, such as (1) federal or state employees who were not previously verified under E-Verify, and (2) individuals using a Social Security number that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has flagged for a pattern of unusual use.

Employers may voluntarily choose to use the system before being required to do so by this section, subject to certain requirements.

An employer who has made a good faith attempt to comply with this section's requirements shall be deemed to be in compliance unless the employer (1) does not to correct a failure after being informed by DHS of the failure, or (2) has engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of this section's requirements.

DHS may extend the deadlines in this section by six months by certifying to Congress that the verification system will not be fully operational within six months of this title's enactment.

(Sec. 802) This section requires DHS to establish and administer an employment eligibility confirmation modeled after the E-Verify system.

The system must (1) respond to electronic inquiries concerning an individual's identity and authorization to work in the United States; and (2) maintain records about such inquiries, including the responses to the inquiries.

The system must provide an initial response to an inquiry within three working days. For cases where the initial response is a tentative nonconfirmation of the individual's employment eligibility, the system must have a secondary verification process which, if used, must provide a final result within 10 working days of the initial response, with extensions available on a case-by-case basis.

DHS and the SSA must establish methods to provide and update the information required for the system to respond to inquiries.

DHS may authorize or require a person responsible for critical infrastructure to use the verification system if doing so would help protect the critical infrastructure.

An individual who alleges that they lost a job or job offer due to an error by the verification system may (1) seek compensation only through the Federal Tort Claims Act, and (2) injunctive relief. Such an individual may not bring a class action lawsuit.

(Sec. 803) This section requires individuals and entities that recruit or refer individuals for employment, including union hiring halls and public or private labor service agencies, to use the verification system when recruiting or making a referral.

(Sec. 804) This section establishes that an employer (or an entity that recruits or refers for employment) who uses the verification system in good faith is not liable for employment-related actions taken in good-faith reliance on the information provided by the system.

(Sec. 805) This section preempts any state or local laws relating to the employment and employment eligibility verification of unauthorized non-U.S. nationals.

States and localities may take certain actions to enforce this title's provisions, including using its business licensing authority to penalize businesses for failing to use the verification system.

(Sec. 806) This section repeals the provisions that established the E-Verify pilot program. It also establishes that any reference in federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that refers to the E-Verify pilot program is deemed to refer to the verification program established by Section 802 of this bill.

[13] (Sec. 807) This section increases the civil monetary penalties for hiring, recruiting, and referral violations involving unauthorized workers and establishes that failing to use the verification system established by this title constitutes such a violation. The section also increases the criminal penalties for engaging in a pattern or practice of such violations.

DHS may debar an individual or entity from receiving federal contracts and grants for repeat hiring violations (including failures to use the verification system) or a criminal conviction for such a violation.

DHS shall also establish an office to (1) receive information from state and local agencies about potential hiring, recruiting, and referral violations involving unauthorized workers, and (2) investigate claims based on such information.

(Sec. 808) This section establishes that an individual who knowing misuses a document meant to establish work authorization is subject to fines, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. (Currently, the statute in question only refers to misusing identification documents.)

(Sec. 809) This section requires DHS and the SSA to enter into an agreement by October 1, 2023, to provide funds to the SSA for the full costs of its responsibilities under this title.

(Sec. 810) This section requires DHS to establish programs to combat fraud related to the employment eligibility verification system established by this title.

[14] Specifically, DHS must, in consultation with the SSA, establish programs to (1) block Social Security numbers with unusual use patterns in the system, (2) allow individuals to suspend or limit the use of their Social Security numbers or other identifying information in the system, and (3) allow parents to suspend or limit the use of their child's Social Security number or other identifying information in the system.

(Sec. 812) This section requires DHS to establish at least two pilot programs that use different technologies for verifying the identity and employment eligibility of new employees.

(Sec. 813) This section requires the Office of the Inspector General of the SSA to find unauthorized workers by auditing cases involving (1) a worker disputing wages reported on their Social Security number, (2) a child's Social Security number being used for work purposes, or (3) an employer with many workers with mismatched Social Security numbers or names. The SSA must report these audits to Congress.

(Sec. 816) This section nullifies two Department of Labor final rules related to H-2A (temporary or seasonal agricultural workers) visas.

I agree, Trump prioritized himself over domestic security and he needs to be flushed out and replaced. Glad to have you on board Mike. - Lapsody

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

Hoisted on my own petard. I hate it when that happens.....

"This is an example of the left not understanding Trump's style....

Let me point out what I am getting at by asking a question

Which answer do you think will spur the recalcitrant members of NATO towards meeting their spending commitments? The answer he gave or this answer

He said: "One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?"

Trump: Well gosh golly, the USA knows times are tough, so catch up when you can and don't worry about your commitment. The USA has your back."

I know you will do anything to excuse Trump's behavior, but this is beyond stupid.

For one, if the exchange Trump was talking about really did take place with a foreign leader and Trump said what he said and it was all private. That is one thing. It is crass, undiplomatic, and overall dumb, but it was said in private when he was only talking to the head of an ally. It is bad but whatever, he was awkwardly trying to hold an ally to commitments that Trump does not actually understand. Fine. Dumb, but not the dumbest thing he has ever done.

That is not what happened though. Trump was standing in front a huge crowd with cameras and the world able to hear. It wasn't just a close ally of this country listening, it was also enemies of this country. Trump just loudly announced to the whole world that under him as president, the U.S. might not come to the aid of a NATO ally if it was invaded. He was not only threatening allies, but he was also telling enemies that U.S. support for NATO was conditional under him and not definite.

For two, one of the reasons countries always make signing mutual self-defense treaties a big spectacle with all sorts of pomp and circumstance is that they want their enemies to know it is a big deal and that they really mean it. That means always showing a public unity about coming to each other's defense. For over 70 years, everyone in NATO made it quite clear publicly that they were going to come to each other's defense without question. Now over those 70 years many NATO countries got into different little arguments and disagreements with other members over lots of things. There have been trade wars, border disputes, and spying on each other. Some leaders of NATO countries didn't like leaders of other NATO countries. Despite all of that, every NATO country made it quite clear publicly that an attack on one was an attack on all, and if any member was attacked the others would come to their defense.

There was never any doubt about this. Never. That is why the Soviet Union/Russia/Putin hated NATO so much. That unified front gave its members relative peace and prosperity for over 70 years.

Donald Trump has made it clear that if he is president, there will be some doubt about the U.S. supporting its allies.

For three, it is clear Donald Trump does not understand NATO, which means that his cult members will not understand NATO. He thinks of it as some club where everyone is supposed to pay their dues (share). So when he hears other countries are failing to live up to their committed defense spending levels that the U.S. is being taken advantage of. He thinks of committed defense spending levels like club dues. It is clear that his cult believes this as well. In reality, committed defense spending levels are not club dues according to the treaty, but like most stupid people, once they are firmly convinced of something, nothing will change their mind.

So, with his narrow, misinformed view firmly set, Trump thinks the U.S. would be better off on its own than in a world where it was supporting the defense for much of Europe.

Such a myopic view ignores all of the benefits the U.S. gains just by such an alliance like NATO existing. As mentioned, NATO has kept relative peace in much of Europe for over 70 years. The U.S. benefits greatly when its allies (and trade partners) have the safety to grow and prosper. Everyone benefits. The U.S. could not have won the cold war by itself if it was not for NATO. Despite being different treaties with different members, without NATO the European Union never comes into existence. Without NATO, all of the migrants into Europe from Africa and the Middle East would have caused numerous wars in Europe long ago. Without NATO the fall of the Berlin war and the reunification of East Germany and the rest of the Soviet Bloc back into Europe would never have gone smoothly and probably cause at least another European war. In Ukraine, without NATO it is clear that Russia's aggressions in Ukraine would have spilled over into other European countries.

NATO stops wars by giving its members an assumption of peace and security. The U.S. benefits from a peaceful Europe.

I know that many cultists don't think that whether or not there is peace in Europe affects the U.S., but it does. There are two world wars to prove it. There were lots of people who thought Hitler was a "European problem". Now Putin is just a "European problem". Wars in Europe don't stay contained within the borders of Europe.

"There's no doubt that if the House GOP is only offering HR 2 and nothing, there will be no border bill."

I am pretty sure that if the Democrats unconditionally attached HR 2 to funding for Ukraine and Israel, Trump would say it was a bad idea and demand the House reject it.

Trump doesn't want anything done about the border. He wants to campaign on it.

The House Republicans completely blew it. It was an historic opportunity for them to get much of what they wanted on immigration (a topic that is supposedly important to them), but they showed their commitment and loyalty to Trump is far more important than any realistic immigration solution.

The naive followers of them think that they will just be able to get a better immigration solution in January if Trump wins the White House. They do not realize that even if they control the Senate, nothing they really want is going to garner 60 votes. Heck, I am fairly sure that even if Republicans somehow held 60 seats in the Senate that even a few of the moderate Republicans would vote against a bill like HR 2 that isn't really a solution and more of a political signaling bill.

Also, the other day I heard a nutty Trump supporter say that if the bipartisan negotiated immigration bill was such a good idea, it can just be resubmitted in January and it will pass then. They fail to recognize that no Democrat would vote on the immigration bill on its own. The only reason Democrats supported it this time was because it was attached to Ukraine and Israel funding.

What is most amazing to me about the bipartisan bill is that Trump was able to so easily convince his cult that the immigration portion of the bill was a gift to the Democrats and therefore should be voted down. His cult is too stupid to even recognize that the immigration portion was a gift to Republicans, it was giving them much of what they wanted in exchange for Ukraine. To sit here and listen to Dope and BHM argue against the bipartisan immigration portion of the bill is insane.

"Thank you for making my point for me. democrats will sue in friendly districts, and secure injunctions. Thus proving that they don't give a rip about a secure border."

Just because you don't have a clue how the justice system works does not mean he is demonstrating your point. You do realize that there are courts like appeals courts and the Supreme court that review lower court rulings? Any bad injunction by a cherry picked Democratic judge would get reversed in a heartbeat.

"But how does that tie their hands? Besides tying up whatever they wanted to do in federal court?"

Seriously???

You are like a person standing out in the pouring rain with no hat, no umbrella, no coat. Nothing to protect you from the rain and keep you dry. So you are standing there and someone comes by and offers you a light jacket that you can hold over your head to keep you from getting wet. You tell them no because the jacket will only protect your head and your legs and torso will still get wet. So he keeps the jacket and moves on and you continue to stand out in the pouring rain getting your legs, torso, and head wet.

Right now, by law, the U.S. cannot stop or pause people from making asylum claims at the U.S. border. You think a proposed law that has a mechanism that can actually be used to pause asylum claims is somehow tying someone's hands because it can be tied up in court. This is somehow worse than not being able to pause or stop people from making asylum claims at all.

You are right. Using the jacket to cover your head in the rain won't protect your legs and torso. It is much better to just stand there in the rain without the jacket and get your legs and torso wet anyway.

It is amazing how Trump's cult is being taken advantage of. They were given a gift and they refused it because they are too stupid.

To sit here and listen to Dope and BHM argue against the bipartisan immigration portion of the bill is insane. - Umm

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

I was more or less on board when the bill was in the whisper stage, but when it came out with that poison pill in it, I was perplexed and began doubting the sincerity of the effort.

However, being the cockeyed optimist that I am, I held out hope that the debate and amendment process would grind off the really objectionable stuff like the sunset provision. Anyway, let the debates begin.... but they never did and maybe never were intended to anything serious, nothing more than a short detour on the road to that sweet Ukraine money.

You think a proposed law that has a mechanism that can actually be used to pause asylum claims is somehow tying someone's hands - Umm

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

Damn straight. That mechanism has been needed for so long and you can see what a mess occurs without it. In fact, this mechanism is so good we are going to reduce its use on a sliding scale over its short three year life, the end of which this marvelous tool will no longer be available.

How in God's warming green earth could such a clause be proposed in a serious bill. Games were being played despite whatever Trump had to say about it.

I agree, Trump prioritized himself over domestic security and he needs to be flushed out and replaced. Glad to have you on board Mike.

This! Trump cares about nothing other than Trump. He doesn't give a hoot about the border. He wants to be President, and he thinks talking about the border in the manner he does will help him get there.

Unless you can enrich his bank account, feed his hunger for power and fame, or you've got a pussy he wants to grab, he could care less about you. Once he's gotten everything he can from you, he moves on to the next victim. See Rudy Giuliani, William Barr, Mike Pence et al.

Anyway, let the debates begin.... but they never did and maybe never were intended to anything serious, nothing more than a short detour on the road to that sweet Ukraine money.

Nope. They wanted the money, but had to make some token gestures to gain some GOP support. But as we've seen from HR2 - a real border bill - this thing was never really serious.

In fact, this mechanism is so good we are going to reduce its use on a sliding scale over its short three year life, the end of which this marvelous tool will no longer be available.

How in God's warming green earth could such a clause be proposed in a serious bill. Games were being played despite whatever Trump had to say about it.

Mike, it was a very serious bill. SMH. Here's something on that part from Forbes:

<snip>Admissions Program, for the purpose of determining whether the eligible individual is subject to any ground of inadmissibility.”
Border And Asylum Measures

The Senate bill contains extensive asylum and border measures, including hiring more asylum officers and raising the credible fear standard. The bill’s most controversial provision would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to invoke “border emergency authority” to stop processing of many individuals when reaching certain thresholds of in admissible alien encounters. This authority is similar to the Title 42 expulsion authority exercised by both the Trump and Biden administrations. An analysis of data on Title 42 questioned its effectiveness in reducing illegal entry.

“When use of the emergency authority is authorized, the Secretary has the authority to prohibit the entry into the U.S. of all individuals, except unaccompanied minors, between ports of entry and may only screen individuals for eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture,” according to a summary. A compromise recommended by the National Foundation for American Policy would sunset the provision after three years, allowing Congress to evaluate whether the measure has been effective and allowed human rights to be protected.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2024/0...

It was very serious. The sunset may have been so if Trump was elected he can only abuse it for so long. But first, take it at face value - they would evaluate to see if it's effective, still necessary, and if human rights were protected.

That is not what happened though. Trump was standing in front a huge crowd with cameras and the world able to hear. It wasn't just a close ally of this country listening, it was also enemies of this country. Trump just loudly announced to the whole world that under him as president, the U.S. might not come to the aid of a NATO ally if it was invaded. He was not only threatening allies, but he was also telling enemies that U.S. support for NATO was conditional under him and not definite.

Trump knows that Putin will love this and I'm sure Trump will expect his pal Putin to do whatever he can to help him get elected.

Trump inciting insurrection and now Trump aiding our enemies. Unbelievable what has happened to the "Grand Old Party".

I know you are right but to drop it before even reaching the Senate floor was not a good faith effort in my estimation. Since it was never debated on the floor of either house, voters are deprived of the opportunity to learn where their representatives stand.

Once the Minority Leader comes out and says the bill's dead, the bill's dead. The Senate's not going to waste time on bills that aren't going to pass, except in certain circumstances not really relevant here.

Look, the Speaker of the House has a lot of power. If he comes out against a bill and says he's not going to bring it forward in his chamber, it's often a fatal blow to the legislation. It's unfortunate, in this case. But we have to give "credit" where credit is due - Johnson's public statements were a death blow to the security bill effort, and Trump's statements were equally damaging. There's no way McConnell can whip the GOP Senators after that for anything close to the Senate proposal, which took months of negotiations to get to.

Also, the other day I heard a nutty Trump supporter say that if the bipartisan negotiated immigration bill was such a good idea, it can just be resubmitted in January and it will pass then. They fail to recognize that no Democrat would vote on the immigration bill on its own. The only reason Democrats supported it this time was because it was attached to Ukraine and Israel funding.

I think most Republican politicians are fine with the border problems not getting fixed. It's the gift that keeps on giving for them. If Trump wins and can't get a border bill passed, the cynical Republican politicians can blame it on the Dems and just use this issue to keep their base permanently fired up. It is so damned cynical. Party over country.

Once he's gotten everything he can from you, he moves on to the next victim. See Rudy Giuliani, William Barr, Mike Pence et al.


And everyone one of his MAGA supporters who are not wealthy and powerful and willing to help him in some way with his grift and corruption.

That is the saddest thing. The average Trump supporter is screwing themselves and they have no clue.

Tell me you support a childish, narcissistic, lying cheating amoral fraudulent rapist without telling me you support a childish, narcissistic, lying, cheating amoral fraudulent rapist.

Hold my beer: it's just his blunt style.

I know you are right but to drop it before even reaching the Senate floor was not a good faith effort in my estimation.

The other problem with the bill was that they didn't work on it in normal committee. Instead they ran one of their famous "Gangs of" clique things that seems to be so popular in the Senate nowadays. Ted Cruz pointed out that this should have been worked on in regular channels through the relevant committees, and he's right.

In recent years these "Gangs" I think are causing more problems than they solve - bills aren't produced in regular order and only a few chosen Senators are allowed to set up the legislative language. Ironically the "Gang" system blew up another chance at immigration reform a few years ago:

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dealmaking-daily...

5 Lessons from the Collapse of a Bipartisan Agreement
The failed 2017 bipartisan agreement on immigration nonetheless offers negotiation skills and strategies to learn from:

Establish a representative working group. The Gang of 6’s deal was thwarted by hard-line voices on immigration that felt excluded from the negotiations. When appointing a committee to represent a larger group, make sure it includes the full range of perspectives.

Our country is strong, strong enough to survive even another four years of a Trump presidency.

Trump just told us he may commit treason, ignoring our commitment to NATO. When somebody tells you what they would do, believe that they might just do that.

Perhaps you're convinced Trump is simply lying for effect -a bald faced liar- like ex-KGB Putin. You've scraped the bottom of the barrel for a cult leader as vile as Putin.

Our country is strong, strong enough to survive even another four years of a Trump presidency.

I like to think so.

Here's a difference between Trump v1 and Trump v2: In his first administration he ended up with some GOOD people in the executive branch, though by the end of his term he had managed to get rid of many of them and replace them with corrupt cronies. If he gets a second chance he won't make the mistake of having GOOD people. Nothing but book-licking Quislings need apply. Now that could do serious damage to our democracy.

bhm: "Russia worship has been an often used liberal construct but never has been reflective of conservative reality."

Horsepucky. The number of right wing associates of Trump, and the Trumps themselves who have been indicted and/or convicted for their various associations with Russia speak for themselves.

Why not give everyone in the world - who has historically hurt by Europeans - - a 1 year Hall Pass within England, France, and Germany?

1 year, anything goes.

Would be interesting.

As would be having the President of the United States, Prime Minister of Israel, and Ayatollah of Iran walk down the street, NO security.

See how that one works out too.

Sigh.

one can dream.

Yes, Mooch Racist Colonizzer NATO countries need to step up.

Here's to Trump for at least getting them going in that way.

Maybe someone sick of the mistreatment in France will provide them more "motivation" :):):) Yes, smiles!

bighairymike: That mechanism has been needed for so long and you can see what a mess occurs without it. In fact, this mechanism is so good...

Trump had republicans kill the bill that both the acting CBP chief and the Border Patrol union endorsed and called “the strongest set of tools we have had in decades to effectively manage migration and enhance our nation’s border security” because that's all he can run on.

Sunset clauses are common and provide a way for lawmakers on both sides of an issue to get to 'yes' even though they do not fully embrace specific aspects of a bill. Stop suggesting there's something sly or underhanded going on; there's not. And by blowing up the deal, you've gone from potentially closing the border for nine full months to never closing the border a day in year one... 7 1/2 months to zero days in year two... and 6 months to zero days in year three. Plus, you've blocked the hiring of hundreds of new border agents and judges who could send migrants back home faster... all the things republicans have been demanding for years.

In effect, republicans have now become the party that has enabled open borders for the next three years and made it possible for migrants to remain in the U.S. longer before reaching an immigration court.

Dopes.

The bottom line is that the spin people will be out in force to try to pin Biden's border failures and massive surge in illegals on the GOP.
It won't work.

The electorate knows who the open borders people are and they further know that the media tried to ignore the crisis on the border for 3 years. The late breaking attempts to idiotically blame Trump and the Republicans just aren't going to fly.

The electorate knows who the open borders people are and they further know that the media tried to ignore the crisis on the border for 3 years. The late breaking attempts to idiotically blame Trump and the Republicans just aren't going to fly.

Rhetoric notwithstanding, I think that overall point is correct. Public perceptions of the two parties are pretty much baked in. The GOP is very much perceived as the party of more stringent controls on the border (and immigration generally), and the Democrats are perceived as the party favoring strong consideration of the rights and needs of migrants.

But again, I don't think folks are questioning whether the GOP's gambit in scuttling the border bill negotiations would work to their political benefit. I personally think it will. It gives the Democrats something to say back when they're being attacked on the border, but overall the issue still favors the GOP.

I think the main criticism is that the GOP has passed up their best opportunity to actually get changes to the border. This was probably their only chance to get a border bill passed in the next decade or more - even if Trump were to win, and be followed by President Abbott. They're not going to be able to get 60 votes in the Senate for anything as good (by their lights) as this bill again. They're not going to take any damage from that in this election, because they've sold their voters on the idea that border security depends on who the President is, rather than changes to the statutes or the budget. But they're very quickly going to run up against the fact that's not true. So they're going to find themselves in 2025 unable to do anything to solve these problems.

I think the main criticism is that the GOP has passed up their best opportunity to actually get changes to the border. This was probably their only chance to get a border bill passed in the next decade or more - even if Trump were to win, and be followed by President Abbott.

Except that this is more of a statement about the democrats' unwillingness to negotiate AT ALL on this issue instead of one of Republican recalcitrance. I posted the entire summary of HB2 upthread and bolded a number of really excellent provisions for border security. As near as I can tell, no democrats voted for it.

But they're very quickly going to run up against the fact that's not true. So they're going to find themselves in 2025 unable to do anything to solve these problems.

It depends. Trump should have learned something by now about what he can and can't get away with in terms of executive orders and how he can game the democrats by baiting them into suing him over an order that he knows a judge will shoot down. Were I him that's how I would play it: Issue an EO, let the democrats sue me to keep the border controls soft, then blame them when the judge inevitably shoots it down.

That's highly cynical but all the democrats have to do to break the cycle is...do the right thing and take up HB2 in the Senate.

I posted the entire summary of HB2 upthread and bolded a number of really excellent provisions for border security. As near as I can tell, no democrats voted for it.

Of course. It has nothing in it that they support, and is far more restrictive than they would ever agree to. HB 2 was a messaging bill - a bill that is never anticipated to garner broad enough votes to pass. They're designed to contain lots of things that the other party would never agree to include in a bill, so that the proposing party can use their votes against the messaging bill to argue that the other party won't support the general idea of the bill. That's the point of a messaging bill - if you've drafted the bill reasonably enough that you get votes from the opposing party, you've done it wrong.

Were I him that's how I would play it: Issue an EO, let the democrats sue me to keep the border controls soft, then blame them when the judge inevitably shoots it down.

But what does that get you? The actual situation on the border doesn't change. You still don't have any increased border security. You still don't have the ability to do anything about the border. You still have the hundreds of thousands of asylees in the country for years, waiting for their hearings. And in the conservative theory of the border, that will encourage even more people to come to the border.

Don't you want the conditions of the border to improve? How does blaming Democrats when Trump is unable to break the law help that?

That's the point of a messaging bill - if you've drafted the bill reasonably enough that you get votes from the opposing party, you've done it wrong.

Yeah, there were controversial things in it like making sure CBP officers were carrying radios. :)

But what does that get you?
Just read the responses in this thread. The democrats are getting roasted on the border (despite years of saying there was no problem) and the polls are showing it. They know their coalition doesn't support ANY increases in security whatsoever so they're playing the only card they have at the moment: blame the GOP for their failings.

Again, just read the responses in this thread: all of them from the left side of the aisle are pushing the unified premise that the deal is dead because "MAGA killed it" with the secondary theme that "there is no possible way to get anything this good on security for decades". This requires one to accept the dual premises that

1. This bill was a good bill (it wasn't, as documented by me on this board)
2. The democrats are absolved from any responsibility for negotiating in good faith in the future.

The play the democrats will make will be to pretend their bill of normalizing loads of migrants was a Golden Bill that Trump killed for political reasons and thus invoke #2 as a way to avoid future responsibility.

Why would Trump allow that? Why not get ahead of it by laying out bait that he knows the dems will take and force them into a predictable situation? You win lots of football games and win wars with deception.

You still don't have the ability to do anything about the border. You still have the hundreds of thousands of asylees in the country for years, waiting for their hearings. And in the conservative theory of the border, that will encourage even more people to come to the border.

I gain addition by subtraction. By (correctly) labeling the democrats as the party that refuses to secure America's border, I get...fewer democrats. As the beatings continue, they're more...motivated...to actually come to the table and talk solutions.

Don't you want the conditions of the border to improve? How does blaming Democrats when Trump is unable to break the law help that?

To finish the thought.

Today's democrat party does not want a secure border. If they did - and pursued obvious things like making sure CBP officers all had radios - this would be done in a couple of hours.

But they don't. Ergo, a more reasonable negotiating partner must be had and so therefore MORE pressure must be brought to bear on places like New York, Chicago, Denver, Philadelphia and Maaatha's Vineyard.

Witness Denver:
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/next...

Denver police, public safety, elections departments among those told to cut budgets to fund migrant crisis
Mayor Mike Johnston has asked every agency in the city to submit proposals to cut budgets by a total of $180 million.

Witness the consequences of virtue signaling in lieu of good policy.

Yeah, there were controversial things in it like making sure CBP officers were carrying radios. :)

Again, that's an essential feature of any good messaging bill. You put a ton of things in the bill, making sure that there are at least some provisions that the opposing party will not ever vote for, and at least some provisions that no rational people can oppose. That way you can state in your campaign that the opposing party objected to the most anodyne provisions (like CBP officers having radios), rather than the "poison pill" provisions (like amending the statute to authorize family detention, so that you can keep minor children locked up).

1. This bill was a good bill (it wasn't, as documented by me on this board)
2. The democrats are absolved from any responsibility for negotiating in good faith in the future.

Neither of these things are true. The bill was the most restrictive immigration proposal that's come forward in the last thirty years or so - it was a great bill for border restrictionists. Almost entirely "fence," with almost no "door." And Democratic "responsibility" isn't the issue - the reason that this is as good as the GOP will get for a generation or two is because the Democrats were uniquely motivated to abandon some of their principles and interests in ensuring positive treatment of migrants, a set of circumstances you won't see repeated for decades.

I gain addition by subtraction. By (correctly) labeling the democrats as the party that refuses to secure America's border, I get...fewer democrats. As the beatings continue, they're more...motivated...to actually come to the table and talk solutions.

There's a whole lot of wishful thinking there. First, Democrats are getting blamed for the border because Biden's the President; when Trump's the President, Republicans are going to start getting blamed for the border. Because the voters (generally) will blame the person in charge when things go wrong - whether that's fair or not.

Second, the Democrats who are going to get voted out will almost entirely be from the moderate wing of the party - the ones who would be most willing to actually come to the table and talk solutions.

Finally, and most importantly, you're unlikely to ever get even as good a situation as you have right now. You'll never get a better one, despite your imagined "beatings." The Democrats have never been more motivated to cut a deal on the border. This is the high point. The issue is hugely salient, Abbott caught them flat-footed, Biden's running for re-election and both the House and Senate are up for grabs, and there's a massive time-sensitive funding request that they successfully were able to tie to immigration. In 2026, after the Republicans have tried and failed for two years to fix the border and the Democrats have no incentive (as a party) to try to cut a deal, you're never going to get 60 votes.

Abbott gave the GOP a winning hand, and all they had to do was play it to cash in. Instead, they folded and got up from the table.