Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 2
Since no one outside the negotiators has seen the bill, here is what AP is reporting/speculating. I know it is not as reliable as Fox News so forgive me.
Here is what the AP had under the "Border Security" heading.... And how about that last item I bolded, yikes!
BORDER SECURITY
It was the Republicans who demanded negotiations over the border, refusing to provide aid for Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion, unless Biden also agreed to changes to cut immigration.
While Biden had initially proposed $14 billion to bolster border security in the national security package, Republicans said money was not enough. They want to enshrine policy changes at the border into law, some echoing Donald Trump, the party’s frontrunner for the presidential nomination, who takes a hard line against immigration.
Still, billions of dollars of funding will almost certainly be part of any deal.
Border Patrol officers are overwhelmed processing migrants who turn themselves in seeking asylum. Biden had proposed $3.1 billion for additional border agents as well more asylum officers, immigration judge teams and processing personnel. Supporters say the money for the asylum system is crucial to addressing the backlog in immigration courts and essentially getting the process moving faster.
Biden has also suggested $1.2 billion for Customs and Border Protection officers and inspection systems to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl.
While the president also proposed funds to help communities in the U.S. that are taking in the record numbers of new arrivals, Republicans have resisted sending money to the cities, largely Democratic, that are helping house and provide care for the migrants.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Biden has also suggested $1.2 billion for Customs and Border Protection officers and inspection systems to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl.
---------------
This is an oddly worded provision which raises my suspicions. Why mention fentanyl? If you are stop and frisking everyone attempting to sneak in, the fentanyl problem, along with many other problems, will be solved. Does the bill do this?
No. of Recommendations: 4
bighairymike:
Since no one outside the negotiators has seen the bill, here is what AP is reporting...Start using links, please, when you copy and paste others' writings. Had you done so, it would have been easier to point out that the article you're quoting was written December 20, 2023 and that reporting is more than a month old now.
https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-securit...
No. of Recommendations: 1
Bhm: Why mention fentanyl? If you are stop and frisking everyone attempting to sneak in, the fentanyl problem, along with many other problems, will be solved. Does the bill do this?
Are you dense? Do you actually think all the fentanyl coming across the border is being snuck in on people's bodies? SMH. Magag.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are you dense? Do you actually think all the fentanyl coming across the border is being snuck in on people's bodies? SMH. Magag. - Lapsody
----------------
Sorry. You are talking about fentanyl primarily being smuggled through points if entry - trucks and what not- which really isn't an immigration issue. There is quite a bit of fentanyl that comes through the desert but it is small compared to POE's. So I was wrong to say sealing the border would solve that problem. The border needs to be sealed nevertheless.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sorry. You are talking about fentanyl primarily being smuggled through points if entry - trucks and what not- which really isn't an immigration issue.
But it is a border <1>security issue, so I think it's fine to ask for the money. And if it's denied, you can always say you asked for it. It looks like the Bill id dead man walking. I hope no immigrant gets stuck and dies in the razor wire. AS 1pg pointed out, we still have a problem that the law allows the person after mud river to make that asylum request. They are entitled to make that request as it is.
I know Dope thinks it's great to do illegal stuff thinking your just skirting the law, but I don't think we should have to operate that way because this is a hot button vote getter issue. But what's more important right now is we dig up the funding for Ukraine. We cannot afford to lose the trust and respect of our allies. It's hard won, don't throw it away.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But what's more important right now is we dig up the funding for Ukraine. - Lapsody
----------------------
There is nothing more important than our own security, and that includes our Southern border. It is the first duty of our elected leaders, at any level, to protest US. There in nothing shameful in saying that and reflecting that in our laws. Put on you own oxygen mask first, then help those around you.
Put America First. Catchy, I like it.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Too simplistic, Mike. America has vital interests that are putting "America first", even if it isn't obvious (like a tax cut, or a bridge, or more immigration courts and judges).
This bill does put America first by changing some laws -that many on the left HATE-, while joining with our allies in opposing a despot trying to reestablish an empire. It may not be building a new road, but it's definitely a vital interest for us. So, yes, it is "America first".
No. of Recommendations: 1
Too simplistic, Mike. = 1pg
--------------
No, it is quite simple. We should secure our own borders with at least as equal priority as we give to our allies to defend their. Given you can only do one, America First. If you can do both fine. But to put America on the back burner as far as security goes, no way, It is simple.
On a positive note, I heard Sen Jim Lankford, Rep sen from OK and on the border bill working committee, being interviewed by Shannon Breem on Fox News today. The way he described it, much to my surprise, it sounded like the provisions were very sane and acceptable, He categorically denied there were any guaranteed minimums in the bill.
Anyway from what I heard, I would support it, despite what Trump may be saying about it. Talk is cheap though, so let's see the bill.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Putin and Xi running amok is not conducive to our security. Isolationism didn't work in the 30s, and it is still a horrible idea.
As for the bill, as I said previously, if it was a horrible deal that didn't advance the Rep's agenda, and also the Dem's agenda, there would not be a bill to be considered. One or both sides would have walked away. So with this bill, you get Ukraine aid vital to our security, interests, and alliances, and you get some added powers to limit immigration.
But Johnson is going to kill it because it isn't in the best interests of Trump, plus it is a continuing vote-getter for enraged conservatives.
No. of Recommendations: 0
plus it is a continuing vote-getter for enraged conservatives. - 1pg
----------------
Trumps base will hang with him regardless of this bills contents or whether it passes or not. There is zero effect on them.
Now, a continuing the crisis might influence open-minded, non=committed independents to go Trump because, let's face it, fair or unfair, Trump is perceived as more likely to deliver border security than Biden. It is all on Biden for ignoring the issue and thus driving it to become the #1 issue in this years election.
No. of Recommendations: 8
BHM:There is nothing more important than our own security, and that includes our Southern border. It is the first duty of our elected leaders, at any level, to protest US. There in nothing shameful in saying that and reflecting that in our laws. Put on you own oxygen mask first, then help those around you.
Put America First. Catchy, I like it.
Mike, you seem to have no idea how important these alliances, trade pacts, and the trust built up with them are to America.
<snip>The U.S. is the world's largest importer and second-largest exporter of goods, as well as the largest importer and exporter of commercial services. Nevertheless, trade represents only 25% of the country's GDP in 2021 (World Bank).Jan 17, 2024
We had a trade agreement under Obama. the TPP, and Trump withdrew us from it, now China has applied to join. Trump made a bad move that weakened us and it looked like it was just because it was an Obama deal. That isn't what you do, you don't withdraw, you renegotiate. It's been renegotiated since.
By stating we may not defend Europe and Taiwan, Trump has people questioning our trustworthiness on the world stage. Our enemies will exploit that. If Ukraine isn't funded it will begin the decline of America on the world stage. If you want to follow a boob over a cliff, I'm not going with you.
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>Put America First. Catchy, I like it.<<
Mike, you seem to have no idea how important these alliances, trade pacts, and the trust built up with them are to America. - Lapsody
----------------------
Whoa there, take a deep breadth. Those relationships with our allies are extremely important, vital. But you seem to think it is somehow an either or with border security.
Within the framework of 200,000 migrants a month flowing in, and lets say they are all sunday school teachers, the cost of providing for this horde is humongous, so putting America first might think it a good idea to curtail some of that to avoid cutting services to US citizens and Veterans assistance.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think it is clear that Congress is responsible. Not the POTUS, whichever party happens to occupy that position.
This administration has (legally) apprehended and deported more people than the Trump administration. Obama did, too. Another poster provided those data last week. Trump was ineffective, even when Reps controlled both houses, and there is no reason to suspect he will magically become effective if he wins this year.
You appear to be coming around to this bill. Sadly, you are in the minority on the right. Maybe write a letter or two? I've been known to do that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So campaign with your leaders to pass that bill. That's the closest you've been to your goal in a decade, and likely for another generation.
No. of Recommendations: 0
So campaign with your leaders to pass that bill. That's the closest you've been to your goal in a decade, and likely for another generation. - 1pg
---------------
How can you expect me to advocate for passage of "that bill" hen no one has seen it. I hope it is worthy of supporting but .... history
No. of Recommendations: 0
How can you expect me to advocate for passage of "that bill" hen no one has seen it. I hope it is worthy of supporting but .... history
The bill is BS. They won’t start removing people until and unless you have 5,000 encounters PER DAY at the border.
In other words, this bill codifies the current flood into law. That’s insane.
No. of Recommendations: 1
This administration has (legally) apprehended and deported more people than the Trump administration. Obama did, too.
No. Obama goosed the numbers to make himself look good; I proved that last week. He’s a fraud.
Biden has presided over a literal invasion along the southern border. He’s done that via the executive action the left insists can’t happen.
Merely 1 example: 298(g) programs. Here are a lot fewer of them now.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Dope:
The bill is BS. They won’t start removing people until and unless you have 5,000 encounters PER DAY at the border. That 5,000 is exceeded every day in 2022, 2023, and 2024. So Biden or Trump can use the law almost instantly. And we only need allow 1400 to cross the border at points of entry who pass the initial interview for asylum.
5,000 x 30 days = 150,000 per month
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-...Stop. Take a deep breath.
No. of Recommendations: 0
The bill is BS. They won’t start removing people until and unless you have 5,000 encounters PER DAY at the border.
In other words, this bill codifies the current flood into law. That’s insane. - Dope
------------------
I agree 5,000 is way too many, especially until we digest the 8 or 9 million Biden already has let in. But as long as Abbott keeps shipping them to sanctuary cities, the pressure will still be on to reduce that number.
At least we will have a tool. Future legislation can change that number up (dem) or down(rep) as the ebb and flow of politics grinds on. Maybe that is how it should be.
It's a start.
However there are still huge things that must be learned about the bill, effect on gottaways for example, and escalation of ever harsher penalties on repeat offenders, making overstaying a visa a crime and empowering immediate deportation, more courts, more detention facilities, end catch and release , restart remain in Mexico...
Sen Jim Lankford was on Fox today assuring in an interview that the 5,000 trigger will not be in the final bill when the committee releases it.
Talk is cheap...
No. of Recommendations: 1
And we only need allow 1400 to cross the border at points of entry who pass the initial interview for asylum. - Lapsody
=================
I had not heard this, but like it. Another knob that can be adjusted is good for the toolbox.
No. of Recommendations: 0
The other way to look at this is through the eyes of a democrat.
We know they couldn’t care less about national security and we know they want as much illegal immigration as they can get. So the question is, how does this bill enable lawfare on their part? How does it give them tools to force the next President to keep accepting millions more illegals?
Incentives drive behavior, and keeping the border open is what they really want.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Incentives drive behavior, and keeping the border open is what they really want. = Dope
-----------------
I know they do and would run amok to the extent they can for another year. Then Trump uses this new authority to crank it down as much as possible while at the same time supporting Abbott and lobbying daily for legislation to reduce that 5,000 down to 2,500.
If things improve as they surely will under Trump and the voters like what they see, and want more of the same, they can elect Desantis.
I am OK to having a tool and let politics decide how to use it rather than no tool at all, but, and this important, it must be a good tool capable of actually sealing the border at all times, counting everybody, screening out criminals, child traffickers, and the previously deported and then process the rest. And when the 5,000 limit demands closure, the resources are in place so it really can be closed easily.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But Johnson is going to kill it because it isn't in the best interests of Trump, plus it is a continuing vote-getter for enraged conservatives
And that's the crux of it, and we needed money for Ukraine yesterday.
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Sealing the border" is too vague. Taken literally, it is not possible.
However, I agree that it's good to have tools available. Right now we have none.
Neither side will regard this as a perfect bill, I'm quite certain. And I haven't even read it yet. But apparently the senators think it's something both sides can live with. Bipartisan. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Put America First. Catchy, I like it.
Perfect bit of meaningless fluff for the no-nothing MAGA party.
No. of Recommendations: 4
And that's the crux of it, and we needed money for Ukraine yesterday.
But they respond to the narcissistic jerk who is happy to burn everything to the ground if it helps him get what he wants.
