Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
First, what is it?
https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/1751061492...- Mandatory detention of all single adults.
- Mandatory “shut down” of border once average daily migrant encounters hits 5,000. Importantly, this 5,000 number includes 1,400 CBP One app entries at ports of entry per day, and roughly 3,600 illegal crossings per day.
- How is that enforced? Once the 5,000 threshold is hit, a new authority is codified into law that requires Border Patrol to immediately remove illegal immigrants they catch without processing. They would not get to request asylum, they would immediately be removed. This includes removals back to Mexico, and deportations to home countries. This would be a *massive* change from current policy, which is that once an illegal immigrant reaches US soil, they must be processed via Title 8 and allowed to claim asylum. Under this new authority – they are not processed, and they are mandatorily immediately removed once the “shut down” threshold is reached.So the President would have the new authority to close the border down...but only once 5,000 people came in.
This legislation is a poison pill. It's designed to handcuff a potential 2nd Trump term. Why?
The border can't be shut down until after 5,000 people came over it. It basically codifies into law the current FLOOD of people crossing the border.
In other words, it's a political bill designed to help the democrats out by
1) Letting Biden claim "he solved the border crisis"
2) Taking away a theoretical Trump Presidency's 2nd terms winning issue
3) Sticking Trump with an unsolvable problem and give the d's the ability to sue under this new bill
Oh, sure...on its face it looks fantastic - loads of authority to do this and that, blah blah blah. But it's really a smokescreen.
The bill would have Constitutional problems - the President is the commander in chief and can declare the border closed as the CiC sees fit. The legislative branch is not charged with defense of the nation.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Dope:
The border can't be shut down until after 5,000 people came over it. It basically codifies into law the current FLOOD of people crossing the border.<snip>The border couldn’t reopen until the level of encounters fell to 75% of the trigger number over a span of two weeks. Taken together, the person said that the border could in essence be shut down to migrants for the rest of the year if crossings continue at their current high levels.<sniP>
https://www.wsj.com/politics/mike-johnson-takes-di...Stop and think Dope. Take a deep breath.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Stop and think Dope. Take a deep breath.
Go find a catchphrase that actually applies. Why do we have to wait for 5,000 people (that they know about) to cross? And you *do* understand that even with a “closed “ border there are still 3,750 incoming in a day (which it would never fall to).
You need to take a deep breath. Of oxygen, and not nitrous, if you think this is a decent bill.
No. of Recommendations: 2
How is that enforced? Once the 5,000 threshold is hit, a new authority is codified into law that requires Border Patrol to immediately remove illegal immigrants they catch without processing.
------------------
This does not put a dent in the so called gottaways, estimated by BP to be 800 to 1,000 a day. By definition, these guys are not encountered by BP, so what stops that? And these people avoid BP for some reason so probably are more of a security or criminal risk than average. The border should be permanently closed to these types, regardless of current daily average.
No. of Recommendations: 3
You are being dumb Dope. Stop. Breath slowly.
I showed you that:
Every day for 2022, 2023, and 2024, encounters averaged greater than the requisite 5,000. So it will be triggered immediately. Then:
"The border couldn’t reopen until the level of encounters fell to 75% of the trigger number over a span of two weeks. Taken together, the person said that the border could in essence be shut down to migrants for the rest of the year if crossings continue at their current high levels" per WSJ.
1400 qualifying asylees may be allowed in per day at ports of entry. Those count as encounters.
Think. Breath slowly.
No. of Recommendations: 1
This does not put a dent in the so called gottaways, estimated by BP to be 800 to 1,000 a day. By definition, these guys are not encountered by BP, so what stops that? And these people avoid BP for some reason so probably are more of a security or criminal risk than average. The border should be permanently closed to these types, regardless of current daily average.
Exactly. The entire exercise is so the dems can say they passed a bill. The bill would do nothing except tie the hands of the next President.
There’s even more stupidity buried in the bill, like how they plan to expedite asylums when the backlog is 2million+ cases, but who cares? The whole thing isn’t even going to pass cloture in the Senate.
That it’s a bad bill won’t stop the usual suspects here from claiming that Biden has nothing to do with the border and that it’s all the fault of Congressional Republicans, though. Before they lie to us they have to lie to themselves.
No. of Recommendations: 1
You are being dumb Dope
So you mean I’m playing down to my level of competition? Nah.
You’re the one who needs to think. How are 3,700 people coming over if the border is “closed”?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Stop and think Dope. Take a deep breath.
Why bother when FOX et al do all the 'thinking' for you?
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's a GREAT bill... now I think we've seen everything...
Pass a bill to say "lets break existing law just a little and say now that makes it okay"...
Bonus surprise: Lankford from Oklahoma came out with "just read it and you'll see it's good"...
Before now, I've always thought of Lankford as having useful critical thinking skills... he might be sipping of the DC swamp water...
He's not up for reelection until 2028, but if he were running this year I could see it costing him his seat in the Senate. I doubt many Okies see eye to eye with him on the issue.
No. of Recommendations: 1
He's not up for reelection until 2028, but if he were running this year I could see it costing him his seat in the Senate. I doubt many Okies see eye to eye with him on the issue. - BreaNear
---------------
You are right about that. There is a lot of Rancor over Lankford back in his home state of OK. I don't follow him at all but I personally thought the provisions as described by Lankford over the weekend were reasonable and ones I could support. Now if the bill actually gets released that way is another matter.
No. of Recommendations: 0
You are right about that. There is a lot of Rancor over Lankford back in his home state of OK. I don't follow him at all but I personally thought the provisions as described by Lankford over the weekend were reasonable and ones I could support. Now if the bill actually gets released that way is another matter.Lankford needs to un-marry mentally this legislation (people marry their ideas more tightly than their actual spouses)...because it's leading him to say weird things in public:
https://archive.is/WnXElvia
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lankford-cites-el...Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., cited the "presidential election year" in explaining on Sunday why Republicans are backing away from the border bill he is negotiating with Senate Democrats, arguing that the supplemental package, contrary to the assertion by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is "not about letting 5,000 people in a day." Because criticizing your own team always helps.
"The challenge that Sen. Cruz has and a bunch of other folks is they're still waiting to be able to read the bill on this. And this has been our great challenge of being able to fight through the final words, to be able to get the bill text out so people can hear it. Right now there's internet rumors is all that people are running on. It would be absolutely absurd for me to agree to 5,000 people a day," Lankford told "Fox News Sunday" host Shannon Bream. "This bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day. There's no amnesty."Okay, Senator. We'll play along. Where does the "trigger" language come from? Why is it very specific in terms of numbers?
Then he says
In the past four months, Lankford said, there's only been seven days when less than 5,000 people have crossed the border in one day. "This is set up for if you have a rush of people coming at the border, the border closes down. No one gets in," he said of the bill. "This is not someone standing at the border with a little clicker saying, I'm going to let one more. And we're at 4,999, and then it has to stop. It is a shutdown of the border and everyone actually gets turned around." Okay. So if nobody's got the proverbial clicker at teh border, then what criteria is being used to count?
Here's the really silly comment:
"Republicans four months ago would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said, we're not going to give you money for this. We want a change in law. And now it's interesting, a few months later, when we're finally going to the end, they're like, 'Oh, just kidding. I actually don't want a change in law,'" Lankford said. "We all have an oath to the Constitution, and we have a commitment to say we're going to do whatever we can to be able to secure the border."So just pass the thing for the sake of passing it? That's how you get things like Obamacare: bills that suck but let's pass them to find out what's in them. No thanks.
I'll withhold final judgement until actual legislation appears, but if this trigger nonsense is in it then it's a bad bill that should be DOA.
Here's a very simple logical test for the Trigger Supporters: What about the first 5,000 people to run across the border illegally is actually legal?
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Dope1
So just pass the thing for the sake of passing it? That's how you get things like Obamacare: bills that suck but let's pass them to find out what's in them. No thanks.
I'll withhold final judgement until actual legislation appears, but if this trigger nonsense is in it then it's a bad bill that should be DOA.
Here's a very simple logical test for the Trigger Supporters: What about the first 5,000 people to run across the border illegally is actually legal?>>
The whole thing is starting to remind me Her Royal Highness Pelosi openly declaring "we have to pass this thing** to find out what's in it". (Passing ObamaCare over a decade ago.)
(**To which physicians retorted: "That's the definition of a stool sample.")
I remember thinking she was joking, SHE HAS TO BE, and waiting for her 'punch line'. America's bejeweled queen she is!
The scenario extant is not promising.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Here's a very simple logical test for the Trigger Supporters: What about the first 5,000 people to run across the border illegally is actually legal? "
Instead of calling it a 'trigger', call it a threshold.
What about the first 5 mph over the limit is actually legal? See - not legal, just not above a reasonable threshold.
