Post New

In their filing, the Trump DOJ admits that they know nothing about the individuals they're deporting to Venezuela:

While it is true that many of the TdA members removed under the AEA do not have criminal records in the United States, that is because they have only been in the United States for a short period of time. The lack of a criminal record does not indicate they pose a limited threat. In fact, based upon their association with TdA, the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose. It demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile.

IOW, these individuals have not committed crimes, we don't actually know anything about them but they must be terrorists because we lack a complete profile on them and because we say so.

Umm.

IOW, these individuals have not committed crimes, we don't actually know anything about them but they must be terrorists because we lack a complete profile on them and because we say so.

Umm.

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

If they came here illegally, then they are deportable as far as I am concerned. This is simple if you were really interested in cleaning the huge mess that Biden left us with.

If you want more hearings, then fine, all you need to do is rally your fellow progressives to provide funding for sufficient detention beds and immigration courts. This also is simple. Why aren't you guys agitating for that?

Why aren't you guys agitating for that?

What were agitating for is to follow the law.

bighairymike: If they came here illegally, then they are deportable as far as I am concerned. This is simple if you were really interested in cleaning the huge mess that Biden left us with.

Since it's been repeatedly explained to you that not all migrants are here illegally, there's not much point in explaining it yet again. Keep shouting at those clouds, though.

bighairymike: If you want more hearings, then fine, all you need to do is rally your fellow progressives to provide funding for sufficient detention beds and immigration courts. This also is simple. Why aren't you guys agitating for that?

We did exactly that but you're unwilling to take 'yes' for an answer unless you get everything you want in the negotiations and democrats get nothing. GFY.

What were agitating for is to follow the law. = AW

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

Very noble if you ignore the utter lack of resources to do so.

GFY. - CO

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

And you wonder what causes the lack of civil dialogue that you claim to miss.

Very noble if you ignore the utter lack of resources to do so.

Very ignoble of you to come up with excuses to break the law.

While I’m concerned about criminals on the street, the most dangerous criminals are the ones in the White House.

Very noble if you ignore the utter lack of resources to do so.

We don't lack the resources to follow the law. What we lack are the resources to keep hundreds of thousands of people (or more) detained indefinitely while they wait years for their hearings. This isn't a unique situation, BTW - if we eliminated bail, we don't have the jail space to keep everyone locked up while they would be awaiting trial, either. We can follow the law, because the law doesn't require pre-hearing detention. If you want to pay a ton of money to detain people while they're awaiting their hearings, though, that's certainly a choice that Congress could make - but it's not one that's necessary to follow the law.

And you wonder what causes the lack of civil dialogue that you claim to miss.

Reminds me of Chris Matthews after the first Romney/Obama debate - "That wasn't an msbnc debate!" What he meant was that the Republican wasn't gagged, tied to a chair and being shocked with a car battery. Same thing with some of these guys.

At any rate, we know a lot about who we're deporting. They're here illegally. They're often caught committing crimes. And a bunch of them are wanted by foreign governments.

So we're sending them back.

bighairymike: And you wonder what causes the lack of civil dialogue that you claim to miss.

After your unending stream of lies and nonsense -- and your utter disregard for facts explained to you time and time again -- that ship has sailed.

At any rate, we know a lot about who we're deporting.

And just how do “we” know a lot about who we’re deporting?

Are you trusting an adjudicated rapist, a person that had his charity shut down due to self dealing, and a 34-count convicted criminal?

Where is all this information? Can you share it with us?

If you want to pay a ton of money to detain people while they're awaiting their hearings, though, that's certainly a choice that Congress could make - but it's not one that's necessary to follow the law. - Albaby

You don't want them deported without a hearing

You won't fund the additional resources to provide detention and hearings.

The only alternative your lease us with is to release them onto the streets where that can continue preying on citizens. That is simply unacceptable, so default appears to be accept the crime or deport them immediately. Our system was not designed to handle the volumes we find ourselves stuck with. We cannot afford to be held hostage to an inadequate process. Normally such an issue would be resolved through bipartisan legislation. The dems have ruled out that option so here we are.

I don't like the present process either but it is better than releasing dangerous criminals into our communities. Keep deporting until a better solution comes along.

Lastly, there needs to be a re-calibration of judicial authority where a single lower court activist judge can exercise authority over any aspect of Article 2 powers of the Executive. Especially when the tactic is to issue a TRO and then take months to resolve the issue. This completely undermines the President

And just how do “we” know a lot about who we’re deporting?

We watch the news.

Where is all this information? Can you share it with us?

This is your windmill to tilt at with the rock-solid sourcing you people claim to have access to.

If you access it, you might learn that 23 dudes we sent down to El Salvador were criminals they wanted back.

Or you could just keep raging away. That’s a great way to relieve stress.

After your unending stream of lies and nonsense -- and your utter disregard for facts explained to you time and time again -- that ship has sailed. - CO

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

One mans fact is another mans spin.

BTW you don't have to convince me of anything, I am a no body. Who you need to convince is the voters as you will find out in 2026. Try your GFY on them.

You don't want them deported without a hearing

It's not legal to deport someone without a hearing if they request one, any more than it's legal to sentence someone to jail without a trial.

You won't fund the additional resources to provide detention and hearings.

For the most part, Democrats will fund the additional resources to provide detention for those folks that require detention and for hearings....as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package that also accomplishes the things that democrats want changed to the immigration system. Just like Republicans won't normalize DREAMer status unless part of a comprehensive immigration package that gives them the same things.

That said, Democrats did agree to fund additional resources to provide detention and hearings....but that was rejected last year.

The only alternative your lease us with is to release them onto the streets where that can continue preying on citizens. That is simply unacceptable, so default appears to be accept the crime or deport them immediately. Our system was not designed to handle the volumes we find ourselves stuck with. We cannot afford to be held hostage to an inadequate process. Normally such an issue would be resolved through bipartisan legislation. The dems have ruled out that option so here we are.

You can't deport them immediately. They are entitled to a hearing. The government has to prove that they're here illegally, and afford them an opportunity to demonstrate whether they qualify under the law from protection against deportation. That's basic due process - every person gets their day in court.

There is an alternative, of course - the same alternative we use in the criminal justice system, where almost everyone who is arrested is released before trial. Because it's too expensive and unnecessary to lock up hundreds of thousands of people in advance of their trial. You just prioritize locking up the ones that pose the greatest risk. Some proportion of the hundreds of thousands of people who are released on bail or other pre-trial release will end up committing a crime, because some proportion of any group of hundreds of thousands of people will end up committing a crime over any given time period. We just don't start thinking that if someone who is out on bail for misdemeanor theft ends up committing a DUI (for example) that we need to end pre-trial release - because taxpayers would never be willing to foot the bill to lock everyone up and pay for the courts and prosecutors necessary to get everyone to trial that quickly.

Why? The government is subject to the judicial system like everyone else - and has to follow the law like everyone else. If they're breaking the law, they can be enjoined.

If you access it, you might learn that 23 dudes we sent down to El Salvador were criminals they wanted back.

Which would be fine, if the people you claim were criminals that they wanted back were given an opportunity to present contrary evidence to a neutral arbitrator so that we would know whether that was true. You know, due process. In case the government has the wrong dude. Or in case the records are wrong.

To say nothing of the scores of people we sent down to El Salvador who weren't criminals they wanted back. Again, due process doesn't exist to protect the criminals - it exists to protect the people who are not criminals.

Lastly, there needs to be a re-calibration of judicial authority where a single lower court activist judge can exercise authority over any aspect of Article 2 powers of the Executive. Especially when the tactic is to issue a TRO and then take months to resolve the issue. This completely undermines the President

Forgot the quote in giving my response:

Why? The government is subject to the judicial system like everyone else - and has to follow the law like everyone else. If they're breaking the law, they can be enjoined.

Which would be fine, if the people you claim were criminals that they wanted back were given an opportunity to present contrary evidence to a neutral arbitrator so that we would know whether that was true. You know, due process. In case the government has the wrong dude. Or in case the records are wrong.

Why can't they be adjudicated in their country of origin? You're setting up a scenario where everything that happens slows to an absolute crawwllllllll.

Why can't they be adjudicated in their country of origin? You're setting up a scenario where everything that happens slows to an absolute crawwllllllll.

Because the government has to prove that they're deportable before they can be deported. I mean, it's pretty basic. You can't be deported just because the government says you aren't lawfully here. Sometimes they'll be wrong - it might be by mistake, or intentional, or based on a legal theory that turns out to be incorrect. You have a due process right to have a neutral party assess their claim that you're deportable before they deport you.

Very noble if you ignore the utter lack of resources to do so.

Fascist strategy:

First: defeat the Congressional bill that would have increased funding for lawful, orderly deportations.

Second: Snatch and grab immigrants. Throw them in chains and fly them to El Salvador or God knows where.

Third: Blame the democrats for not funding lawful detention/deportation

Fourth: Make lurid videos portraying all deprtees as violent criminals.

The real, large scale criminality in this world always seems to wear suits or uniforms, and always claims it is only protecting society.

We are starting down that path.

How do you know if you are a fascist?

If you are cheering for this, you probably are.

We did exactly that but you're unwilling to take 'yes' for an answer

Anger is fuel for the right wing brain, no matter how misplaced it is. So stupid. That and always feeling the victim. So sad.

At any rate, we know a lot about who we're deporting.

He heard it on FOX 'news'. And like the guy on Newsmax said: "Well, Trump is always right". Oh, sure, that dementia addled dunderhead is always right. Sheesh.

Because the government has to prove that they're deportable before they can be deported. I mean, it's pretty basic. You can't be deported just because the government says you aren't lawfully here. Sometimes they'll be wrong - it might be by mistake, or intentional, or based on a legal theory that turns out to be incorrect. You have a due process right to have a neutral party assess their claim that you're deportable before they deport you.

Okay. How did Obama manage to rack up record "deportation" numbers such that the LA Times called him "The deporter in chief". Maybe we could use his playbook.

Why can't they be adjudicated in their country of origin?

Because they’re in the United States and in the United States they are allowed due process because it’s the law.

It’s the law.

You think you’re entitled to win elections that you lose.

Now you think you’re entitled to break the law because you don’t like the law.

And you think you know you know all about who these people are by watching a news channel that voluntarily paid three-quarters of a billion dollars because they lied.

You should move to Russia. I think you’d like it.

Fear is the primary emotion that governs conservative brains. Fear of the Other as defined by their scary stereotypes. Fear of gay people. Fear of transgender people. Fear of brown skinned immigrants. Fear of successful women and minorities.

It’s fear that fuels their anger and makes them immune to facts and evidence.

Ernest in Scared Stupid,

You don't want them deported without a hearing

No. Our laws say people cannot be deported without a hearing. This isn't a republican or democrat thing. It is following the law. If you don't like that law, convince Congress to change the law.

You won't fund the additional resources to provide detention and hearings.

That is a flat out lie.

Democrats offered to provide additional funding, but republicans rejected that proposal last year. If you didn't like it, offer some alternatives. The way the Constitution is written makes it hard for one party to push through everything they want. The art of negotiation and compromise is required.

The only alternative your lease us with is to release them onto the streets where that can continue preying on citizens.

That's a strawman. The majority of the people being deported are not preying on citizens. They have simply failed to follow through (or follow) some part of our immigration process. That does not make them a predator. The majority of those in the country illegally are not violating any other laws than immigration, and therefore are NOT preying on anyone.

Anyone who IS a predator is still subject to criminal prosecution outside of the immigration process. If they are engaging in criminal acts - and no doubt some are (although far, FAR from the majority) - charge them accordingly. The criminal system can be used to detain those who violate criminal statutes in addition to immigration laws.

Lastly, there needs to be a re-calibration of judicial authority where a single lower court activist judge can exercise authority over any aspect of Article 2 powers of the Executive.

But that's EXACTLY what the constitution does. It allows a single federal judge to rule on the President's actions. That is where disputes involving executive authority start. If a judge is truly failing to follow the facts and the law, the appellate courts are there to fix the judge's error. The President does NOT have absolute power to do whatever he wants. His power is checked by both Congress and the Judiciary.

--Peter

because taxpayers would never be willing to foot the bill to lock everyone - Albaby

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

Most taxpayers would never be willing to support the non sense coming out of USAID but they get it anyway because the advocates are committed to keeping the gravy train running. All we need is the same level of commitment towards getting violent criminal aliens off the streets. Since compromise is not possible, I am hoping we will have enough gains in 2026 that we don't need the democrats at all. That is the only solution to this unfortunate dilemma.

BTW, one half of the USAID waste would go a long way to providing the necessary detention beds and additional immigration courts to increase processing capacity. Instead, the dems and activist judges are working hard to keep the USAID largess flowing over the objections of the general public.

Okay. How did Obama manage to rack up record "deportation" numbers such that the LA Times called him "The deporter in chief". Maybe we could use his playbook.

You could. Deportations averaged about ~400K per year during Obama's second term, when he earned that sobriquet. Trump could get there, and indeed was close to it (~340K) during his first term before the pandemic, without denying anyone due process. Both numbers were goosed a little by expedited removal, turning people out of the country when they're apprehended at the border, rather than being arrested through internal enforcement efforts. But for the most part, they were just the result of pushing people through the immigration judicial system. They weren't denying people hearings they were entitled to, or trying to have those hearings in another country after deportation.

All we need is the same level of commitment towards getting violent criminal aliens off the streets. Since compromise is not possible, I am hoping we will have enough gains in 2026 that we don't need the democrats at all. That is the only solution to this unfortunate dilemma.

As long as the filibuster exists, it's almost impossible for either party to get enough gains in the Congress to work their will without negotiating with the other party. Part of the reason why this unfortunate dilemma persists is because partisans on both sides hold out the vain hope that one day they will be able to dominate the legislature and not have to worry about what the other party thinks or wants. So the base in both parties prevents any compromise, preferring to wait for the total victory they think will one day come....and since it never does, the dilemma lingers on.

Second: Snatch and grab immigrants. = Bill

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

You keep leaving out one word,

Second: Snatch and grab Illegal immigrants.

Is that on purpose?

So stupid. That and always feeling the victim. So sad. - ges

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

You cannot admit to who are the actual victims when these predators are released into the communities. While we wait for due process these predators churn out new victims every day. And their court appointed attorneys can ride the due process gravy train for months or years at taxpayer expense. What's not to
like.

Because they’re in the United States and in the United States they are allowed due process because it’s the law.

Some are being extradited as they're known criminals.

You think you’re entitled to win elections that you lose.

We won the last election. That seems to be something that you - not us - are having difficulty coming to grips with. The policies that you see going in are things the voters voted for.

Now you think you’re entitled to break the law because you don’t like the law.

This, like all things liberal, is mere performance art. You people didn't care at all when coyotes were human trafficking people by the hundreds of thousands across a wide open US border. You didn't mind any of the zillion crimes committed then or whatever happened after they got here. None of it.

Only now that you think you can rend your garments and make partisan political hay do you pretend to care. Come on, man. Give it up.

You should move to Russia. I think you’d like it.

LOL.
You live in an episode of The West Wing where the world is a Hollywood script written just for you. News flash: it got cancelled years ago.

You could. Deportations averaged about ~400K per year during Obama's second term, when he earned that sobriquet. Trump could get there, and indeed was close to it (~340K) during his first term before the pandemic, without denying anyone due process.

Aha. So Trump the eeeeevil deporter was doing it right his first term. How do you know he's not doing it right now? There are a little over a million people here illegally who are already under deportation orders.

In other words, they've had their day in court...and lost. It's sayanora for them.

bighairymike: Most taxpayers would never be willing to support the non sense [sic] coming out of USAID but they get it anyway because the advocates are committed to keeping the gravy train running.

How do you remain so willfully misinformed?

In fiscal 2023, the most recent fiscal year for which data is largely complete, the U.S. government disbursed $71.9 billion in foreign aid with 27% of all disbursed aid in direct monetary support for economic development, including $14.4 billion of that total to the Ukrainian government for its war with Russia.

Disaster relief and other humanitarian aid accounted for $15.6 billion, or 21.7% of total aid disbursements in fiscal 2023.

$10.6 billion, or 14.7% was spent on fighting HIV/AIDS and another 7.7% for other health initiatives.

Combatting “pandemic influenza” and other emerging public health threats cost us $1.5 billion, or 2.0%.

Promoting democracy, good governance and the rule of law throughout the world accounted for $2.3 billion, or 3.2%.

“Multi-sector” programs that crossed several subject areas was $2.9 billion, or 4.0%.

Israel received $3.3 billion in military aid in fiscal 2023.

U.S. aid dollars supported programs and activities in 177 individual countries and 29 regions. They also helped fund global endeavors. In fiscal 2023, foreign aid accounted for 1.2% of that year’s total federal outlays, which were more than $6.1 trillion.

BTW, we spent a high percentage of our annual budget on foreign aid during the Cold War.

In short, I think you're completely wrong to claim that "most taxpayers would never be willing to support the non sense [sic] coming out of USAID" because, unless, you're an idiot, it's not nonsense, it's money well spent.


https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06...

So Trump the eeeeevil deporter was doing it right his first term. How do you know he's not doing it right now? There are a little over a million people here illegally who are already under deportation orders.

Because we are talking about specific instances where he's not doing it right. This isn't a general argument that every deportation the Administration is doing is bad - it's that the Administration is doing specific things to specific people that not only appear to violate the law, but are based on extremely disturbing legal arguments.

The Administration isn't claiming that the people it shipped off to El Salvador without going to an immigration judge were all under prior deportation orders - they're claiming that the 1798 Act gives them the power to deport anyone without due process and without any judicial review. They didn't arrest and detain Mahmoud Khalil because he had a prior deportation order - they're claiming that the Sec of State can revoke lawful permanent resident status if the green card holder engages in speech he condemns. Etc.

It absolutely is possible to deport a large number of people without breaking the law - which in no way is a rebuttal against specific arguments that particular actions the Administration is taking are unlawful. If anything, it heightens them. If the dudes that were shipped off to El Salvador were, in fact, already subject to deportation orders then it would have been child's play for the Administration to just deport them under regular process. That they dusted off the 1798 Act and tried to use that as the basis for doing so should make you very suspicious of any claim that these dudes all had prior deportation orders.

Part of why this is happening is that there aren't enough people here illegally with prior deportation orders for the Administration's numbers to get where they want. A fair number of those folks aren't deportable at all - some now have legal status that trumps the deportation order (like DACA), some are in jail and won't be deportable until they're released, and many more are just whereabouts unknown. During the campaign, it was easy enough to claim that there was some master list of a million or more easily deportable aliens that could just be scooped up and easily put on a plane - and that they only reason that wasn't happening was because of Perfidious Democrats - but now that Trump has all his people in charge of ICE they're finding that exceedingly difficult to deliver. The numbers aren't where the Administration wants them to be, because there wasn't as much low-hanging fruit as the Administration claimed there would be.

You can deport an Obama-level number of people while following the law, but Trump wants to deport many times more folks than that. You can't do that with just folks that have prior deportation orders - you're going to have to go after more 'conventional' folks that are entitled to a hearing.

We won the last election. That seems to be something that you - not us - are having difficulty coming to grips with. The policies that you see going in are things the voters voted for.

Excuse me. Democrats did not attempt an insurrection, or what Republicans call legitimate political discourse. So who exactly is having difficulty coming to grips with?

The policies Trump is putting in place are policies he campaigned on, but the policies still have to implemented in accordance with the law. That’s something you’re having difficulty coming to grips with.

I live in a place called reality. You’re welcome to join me anytime.

Excuse me.

You're not excused. You lost the last election. And rather than understanding why and making course corrections, you people are throwing your temper tantrums and doubling down on being nasty jerks.

Keep it up! Name calling makes all of you sound so much smarter.

In other words, they've had their day in court...and lost. It's sayanora for them.= Dope

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

Yes, but it]s one day in court sufficient?

Some progressives argue that conditions could have changed since the deportation order was first issued. Other litigation or new evidence may have invalidated the initial deportation order, so the deportee deserves a second hearing just to make sure the order is still valid.

If valid, I hope they drive him straight from the courtroom to the deportation flight. If more that few days pass, new events may have mitigated the order thus requiring another review.

And rather than understanding why and making course corrections, you people are throwing your temper tantrums and doubling down on being nasty jerks.

Keep it up! Name calling makes all of you sound so much smarter.

Let’s see, I did NOT call you a name in my post but you called “you people” nasty jerks.

Apparently you believe name calling makes you look smarter.

Based on the content of your posts, you need to do a WHOLE lot more name calling.

Let’s see, I did NOT call you a name in my post but you called “you people” nasty jerks.

Your cohorts are saying "GFY" on more than one thread. YOU fling casual insults in pretty much every thread.

What's hilarious is that Mike, LM, Jedi and myself...don't need to call any of you anything. As my man has always said:

We're responding with current events.

Toodles!

BHM write: <<And you wonder what causes the lack of civil dialogue that you claim to miss.>>

Actually, the OP was toning down your hero Elon's favorite response, which is "GFY in the face."

Your low-information MAGA swing-voter wanted cheaper groceries. DOGE and the dotard will be handing them a recession and benefit cuts. But, hey: You'll own the libs, right?


https://www.mediaite.com/politics/steve-bannon-sla...

"If they came here illegally, then they are deportable as far as I am concerned." -BHM

Who determines if they came here illegally? Do you believe in rule of law or not?

"This is simple if you were really interested in cleaning the huge mess that Biden left us with." - BHM

LOL. It would be absolutely hilarious that you enjoy displaying your ignorance over and over and over again, except for the fact that your ignorance is destroying this country.

Do you like looking like a fool? Why do you constantly use sources of information that continually make you look dumb?

"If you want more hearings, then fine, all you need to do is rally your fellow progressives to provide funding for sufficient detention beds and immigration courts. This also is simple. Why aren't you guys agitating for that?" - BHM

WTF??? Even you cannot be this dumb. Seriously? What do you think was part of the agreement Trump scuttled last year?

Here is a clue to the clueless. It isn't Democrats (or progressives) that have refused to provide funding for sufficient detention beds and immigration courts. It is Republicans and Trump.

You are being taken advantage of yet again.

Lastly, there needs to be a re-calibration of judicial authority where a single lower court activist judge can exercise authority over any aspect of Article 2 powers of the Executive. Especially when the tactic is to issue a TRO and then take months to resolve the issue. This completely undermines the President

This is rich. The fellow who used the legal system to delay, delay, delay as a tactic is upset when it causes him delays now? Tough - no one is fooled -originally due process were limitations on a King, so he wants to do away with limitations on his Kingshup There is procedural due process - notice, right to be heard, present evidence, and confront witnesses. Let him and he'll reduce due process to nothing - something than can be granted on his whim. Want to do that? Well, we're on that slippery slope..

Substantive due process protects your rights and questions whether the government has the right to hold you in prison, detention, etc., or bring proceedings against you. We like all of this for ourselves and so sorry if it annoys the King, but he's not a King, so he's not being undermined at all.

WTF??? Even you cannot be this dumb. Seriously? What do you think was part of the agreement Trump scuttled last year? - Umm

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

We have been over and over that vacuous border bill that Biden attempted in the last moments of the Biden Admin. That bill would allow up to 5,000 illegals a day to cross into our country before extraordinary measures could be employed to temporarily close the border. Tom Homan has brought that number down to near zero with no legislation at all.

That 5,000 a day threshold is what killed the bill. Like Dope said, the only acceptable number is zero. It makes no sense to drill a hole in your boat when you already face the massive task of bailing out the sinking boat in the first place.

bighairymike: We have been over and over that vacuous border bill that Biden attempted in the last moments of the Biden Admin. That bill would allow up to 5,000 illegals a day to cross into our country...

No, Umm is right: you're wrong, and you're a moron.

As has been explained before, under the bill migrants would not have been able to just cross the border illegally and the practice of "catch and release" would have ended.

Instead, migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews.

Then, migrants who came to the U.S. border at official ports of entry would have been diverted to a new "removal authority program" in which they would have 90 days to make their initial asylum interviews. Those migrants would not be released into the interior of the U.S., either; they would either be detained or kept under government supervision.

And again, migrants who failed their initial asylum interviews would have been removed immediately.

Got it? None of those asylum seekers would have been released into the United States.

Your "5,000 migrants a day getting into the United States" was completely made up fiction by King Donald, repeated by congressional republicans and other useful idiots.

The only "5,000" number pertained to a seven-day average of 5,000 migrants arriving at the border which would have mandated a complete border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also have been a mandatory border closure.

Migrants encountered between ports of entry would have been immediately turned away. If the same person tried to cross twice when the border was shut down between ports of entry, the person would have been barred from entering the U.S. for one year.

In addition, the bill would have placed many asylum determinations in the hands of asylum officers rather than judges in the interest of expediency.

So, again:

No more "catch and release".

No 5,000 migrants entering the United States per day.

Immediate removal of anyone who failed a screening interview.

Migrants who passed an initial screening interview were detained and not released into the United States.

Border patrol officers were given authority to turn away asylum seekers to reduce the numbers eligible to see a judge.

And much more.

And sorry, you're still an uninformed moron.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-...

You cannot admit to who are the actual victims when these predators are released into the communities

Yes, I'm a victim of a horrible crime when the lettuce in my salad was picked by an illegal alien. The horror!

Lastly, there needs to be a re-calibration of judicial authority where a single lower court activist judge can exercise authority over any aspect of Article 2 powers of the Executive.

You speak of activist judges? How about that very biased Supreme Court. How about idiots like Aileen Cannon?

You cannot admit to who are the actual victims when these predators are released into the communities. While we wait for due process these predators churn out new victims every day. And their court appointed attorneys can ride the due process gravy train for months or years at taxpayer expense. What's not to like.

Do you have any stats that compare the crimes by the illegal population to the legal population? That's a lot of hyperbolic exaggeration because if we think they're too dangerous, we detain them, but we have to have some sort of evidence - more than innuendo on a chat board.

Do you have any stats that compare the crimes by the illegal population to the legal population?

Sure. 100% of illegal aliens are criminals by definition. Why can I say that? Because entering the country illegally is a crime.

How’s that for a stat?

Sure. 100% of illegal aliens are criminals by definition. Why can I say that? Because entering the country illegally is a crime.

How’s that for a stat?

It's an incorrect one. Some proportion of illegal aliens entered the country legally. Not every person who is not lawfully present committed illegal entry.

It's also not really the relevant stat. The poster you're responding to was addressing this contention by BHM:

You cannot admit to who are the actual victims when these predators are released into the communities. While we wait for due process these predators churn out new victims every day.

This is the public safety argument in favor of more stringent enforcement of immigration status - the argument that immigrants are "predators," that they are dangerous to other people, that they are "churn[ing] out new victims everyday." It is an argument that they are more likely to commit crimes after they have entered illegally, not an argument based on the mere fact of illegal presence (which is not a crime) or illegal entry (which is).

Which is why the poster is, quite correctly, asking for some evidence that illegal immigrants are, in fact, any more likely to be "predators" than native-born Americans are.

It's an incorrect one. Some proportion of illegal aliens entered the country legally. Not every person who is not lawfully present committed illegal entry.


Everyone who entered the country illegally...is a criminal in violation of US statutes. He was going to attempt to make some kind of point about how illegals are better and more law-abiding than American citizens are, but that factoid tends to get in the way.

That bill would allow up to 5,000 illegals a day to cross into our country before extraordinary measures could be employed to temporarily close the border.

BHM, up you are absolutely wrong.

The proposed border bill DID NOT allow up to 5,000 illegals a day to cross into our country.

No doubt, you either heard Trump claim this or perhaps your favorite news channel.

Here’s a hint: if either a pathological liar or a news channel that voluntarily paid out three-quarters of a billion dollars for lying makes a claim, then perhaps you should take it with a grain of salt.

Because repeating a lie from these sources will make you look like a fool.

Below is a link that explains what was actually in the bill. A bill that one of the most conservative senators thought was a good bill.

What's become a popular talking point among conservative Republicans opposed to an emerging immigration bill is incorrect. Here's what it would do.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-...

And a few more links in case you’re too lazy to do your own thinking and research.

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/unraveling-misin...

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/us/politics/bor...

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/no-the-...

The proposed border bill DID NOT allow up to 5,000 illegals a day to cross into our country.

Yes it did. It allowed 5,000 or whatever the number was encounters a day before the President's "Shutdown authority" kicked in. In other words it tried to codify into law a restriction on the President's power to secure the nation.

We went over this. It was a horribly bad bill that was meant to cement the open border in US law. You people argued against it, claimed the border could never be secured without Congress passing what the democrats wanted, and continue to deny all that to this day.

You were - and are - wrong. Move on.

You speak of activist judges?

You don’t understand. An “activist judge” is any judge who doesn’t agree 100% with King Con Don and let him do whatever he wants.

—Peter

Yes it did. It allowed 5,000 or whatever the number was encounters a day before the President's "Shutdown authority" kicked in. In other words it tried to codify into law a restriction on the President's power to secure the nation.

How was that a restriction?

The President today has no "shutdown authority." The bill would have created a new "shutdown authority" that kicked in at 5,000 encounters a day. That's not codifying a restriction - it's expanding the President's authority to secure the nation.

The President today has no "shutdown authority."

The results at the border indicate that all we needed was a President willing to enforce the laws we already have to stop the rampant flow over the border.

BHM, up you are absolutely wrong.

The proposed border bill DID NOT allow up to 5,000 illegals a day to cross into our country.

He's been told this so many times by so many different people that I'm writing him off as either hopelessly stupid or a deliberate liar - with a bit of a bias toward the latter. It's really hard to be that stupid.

The only reason to keep repeating the correction at this point is for other readers.

--Peter

The results at the border indicate that all we needed was a President willing to enforce the laws we already have to stop the rampant flow over the border.

Regardless, the authority being granted in the proposed bill was a new authority - not one that the President already had. That this new authority was conditioned did not mean that there was a restriction being imposed on the President.

To use an analogy - if I pass a new law allowing highway patrol to shoot speeders in the leg if they are going 100 mph, I'm not codifying that it's legal to go 100 mph. I'm not restricting the highway patrol by only letting them shoot speeders if they're going over 100 mph, because today they're not allowed to shoot any speeders. I'm giving the highway patrol more authority, not less, even though the authority comes with a limitation (only if the person is going over 100 mph).

Regardless, the authority being granted in the proposed bill was a new authority - not one that the President already had. That this new authority was conditioned did not mean that there was a restriction being imposed on the President.

And yet, as it turned out...was unnecessary. The assumption was during the debate at the time was there wasn't a good way to shut things down and drive illegal border crossings to zero. That assumption has since been shown to be false, as evidenced by the number of crossings being down >95% in just 8 weeks.

Now we can move on to other things, namely, shoring up the border barriers and expediting deporting people who don't need to be here. If that means

-More deportation judges
-Bigger detention centers
-More ICE agents

...then that's the direction we should do.

Now we can move on to other things, namely, shoring up the border barriers and expediting deporting people who don't need to be here. If that means

-More deportation judges
-Bigger detention centers
-More ICE agents

...then that's the direction we should do.

And those were all part of the border bill that the GOP rejected. Which is why folks keep pointing out that it was self-defeating for the GOP to torpedo it, when it would have increased those resources.

And those were all part of the border bill that the GOP rejected. Which is why folks keep pointing out that it was self-defeating for the GOP to torpedo it, when it would have increased those resources.

Wasn't self-defeating, as Trump is sitting in the White House and we have a secure border now.
BTW, what's not being mentioned here is the wink-and-a-nod nature of this law that Biden and/or a theoretical President Harris would have used it for.

He/She wouldn't have done a damn thing to lock the border down until the 5k/day limit hit. Then he/she may have done something about it. But mostly likely not. Meanwhile, the enhanced processing resources would have been waving the illegals right on through on an expedited basis.

All the while Harris/Biden would have gotten to tout their bipartisan border bill and look how awesome it is that we're solving the problem.

The thing is...that bill solved the democrats' political problem. Nothing more.


So, no. Not self defeating. The first rule of any legislation that has broad support from democrats is to question the premise of said legislation and reason out what they really want it for. In this case, Biden and/or Harris would have used it to effectively codify 1.8M illegals into the country year after year.

Blowing up that bill meant the United States dodged a bullet; we were 100000% correct on this score.

BTW:

As for the truth test on this statement Biden and/or Harris would have used it to effectively codify 1.8M illegals into the country year after year it's very simple:

Would the democrats have supported the exact same bill minus the 5k limits? Just passed everything else but took that part out or dropped the number down to its correct level of 0.

The answer was no, and thus their intent was exposed.

The thing is...that bill solved the democrats' political problem. Nothing more.

But the converse of that is that defeating the bill enhanced the GOP's political situation - nothing more.

The bill wouldn't have actually codified any number of border encounters as being permissible - the 5K was only a trigger for an additional enforcement power. Again, letting state troopers shoot speeders in the leg if they go over 100 MPH isn't codifying permission for people to speed under 100 MPH. It's an additional enforcement power, not a permission.

You didn't dodge a bullet - if the bill were law today, it wouldn't have made it any less possible for Trump to do what he's doing, and he would have had more ICE agents and more detention space and more administrative law judges at his disposal.

Would the democrats have supported the exact same bill minus the 5k limits? Just passed everything else but took that part out or dropped the number down to its correct level of 0.

In a heartbeat. If you had taken out the emergency provision and eliminated the ability to shutdown the border altogether - no emergency power and therefore no threshold to trigger it - they would have passed it instantly.

But the converse of that is that defeating the bill enhanced the GOP's political situation - nothing more.

Talk to Joe Biden about that. Nobody told him to throw the southern border wide open to the degree he did.

The bill wouldn't have actually codified any number of border encounters as being permissible - the 5K was only a trigger for an additional enforcement power.

I covered this. Future democrat President would suddenly swing into action AFTER 5,000 people flowed in. THEN in a big performative show they would declare the border ‘closed’. After that…right back to having the a wide open front door.

You didn't dodge a bullet

Oh, yes we did. Because now the first problem of 5k/day is down to about 22/day.

In a heartbeat.

Hahaha. I asked this very question on the board and got…crickets for the most part and some other outright noes.

Oh, yes we did. Because now the first problem of 5k/day is down to about 22/day.

Wouldn't have been any different if the bill had passed. The bill didn't restrict Trump (or any future President) from doing anything, and didn't lock in 5K/day as permitted or authorized or anything.

The only difference would have been that there would be more ICE agents, more detention space, and more court throughput.

You didn't dodge anything, except solutions. Because there wasn't any actual substantive problem with the bill - it didn't restrict the enforcement ability of the President, only added to it.

Hahaha. I asked this very question on the board and got…crickets for the most part and some other outright noes.

I don't think you did. IIRC, you asked if people would be willing to take out the threshold and keep the "emergency" draconian enforcement - not whether they'd be willing to jettison the entire thing. I might be misremembering, but I think that's what the discussion was. Which obviously can't happen - we're not going to shut the door to 100% of amnesty claims if even a single person attempts an illegal border crossing. That would not only violate all of our treaty obligations on refugees, but makes a repeat of the St. Louis almost a certainty.

Wouldn't have been any different if the bill had passed.

Had the bill passed and Trump lost, we'd have a vastly different situation down on the border.

The bill didn't restrict Trump (or any future President) from doing anything, and didn't lock in 5K/day as permitted or authorized or anything.

It didn't. That's true.
All it did was aim to give Biden and future dem Presidents air cover to keep the floodgates open.

You didn't dodge anything, except solutions. Because there wasn't any actual substantive problem with the bill - it didn't restrict the enforcement ability of the President, only added to it.

I've covered this. Biden and Harris never had any intention of doing anything along the border other than accelerating the flow of people over it.

Why do you lie so often?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o.amp

but we have to have some sort of evidence - more than innuendo on a chat board. - Lambo

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

Lots of good stats here.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement...

Note that one criminal alien counts as one even if he commits 20 felonies and thus 20 victims while he awaits due process.

The second box breaks down the types of crimes committed by these predators.

Lastly, the sterility of these numbers does not capture the anguish of a mother whos2 14 year old daughter was kidnapped by two illegals, raped and tortured for a few hours, and then killed and thrown under a bridge.

The second box breaks down the types of crimes committed by these predators.

Yeah - and the overwhelming majority of them committed the crime of....illegal entry. Like, 65% of the crimes are just illegal entry. Not really a "predator" crime - and one that by definition cannot be repeated once the person is here in the U.S. And the next two largest categories of crimes are DUI and drug possession - which are of course more serious, but not the sorts of criminal offenses we normally apply the label of "predator" to.

So I don't think this really supports the point you're trying to make. If illegal immigrants (as a group) are no more likely to be "predators" than U.S. citizens (as a group), then you're not making people any safer by going after them as a group than you would by just expelling the same number of random U.S. citizens. Take a million U.S. citizens at random and throw them out of the country and you'll have fewer crimes in an absolute sense, because some proportion of any number of people will commit some crime - but the rate of crime won't really change.

Which is why the poster is, quite correctly, asking for some evidence that illegal immigrants are, in fact, any more likely to be "predators" than native-born Americans are. - albaby

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

That is a feeble argument for allowing criminal illegals to remain regardless how they got here. The US population is thousands of times larger then the number illegals who commit felonies on US soil. So of course the comparison you propose would show our own citizens pose a larger threat than the peace loving illegals so why bother with them, right?

Which is why the poster is, quite correctly, asking for some evidence that illegal immigrants are, in fact, any more likely to be "predators" than native-born Americans are.

Irrelevant. Somebody guilty of Illegal Entry is by definition a criminal and by extension needs to be shown the door, forthwith. For those who merely overstay their visas, they need to come in and explain what the major malfunction is with respect to not having their stuff in order.

The argument of "but these illegals are hardworking people and ..." steps on the rake that in their very first act inside their new home they chose to take a dump on the laws of the United States.

Hahaha. I asked this very question on the board and got…crickets for the most part and some other outright noes.

Link please?

I was part of those conversation, and I don't recall anyone saying that the 5K limit was a bad idea (except you), and no one from the left saying that if it wasn't there they would not support it. But I stand to be corrected if you can find a link to a post. But I doubt you can do that, because I'm pretty sure no one ever said it.

The US population is thousands of times larger then the number illegals who commit felonies on US soil. So of course the comparison you propose would show our own citizens pose a larger threat than the peace loving illegals so why bother with them, right?

No. It's the rate that is really relevant, not the absolute number. Are 100K illegal migrants present in the U.S. more likely to commit crimes going forward than 100K native-born Americans? If not, it doesn't really make sense to label the former group as "predators" if you don't similarly label the latter group - since they're equally disposed to commit "predator" type crimes. Take 100K of anyone and there will be some violent crime committed by folks within that 100K. But if the migrants aren't any more likely to do it, then they're not "predators" to any greater degree than native-born citizens are.

>>Yes it did. It allowed 5,000 or whatever the number was encounters a day before the President's "Shutdown authority" kicked in. In other words it tried to codify into law a restriction on the President's power to secure the nation.<<

How was that a restriction? - albaby

Homan has driven the number of illegal crossing to near zero.

That bill would have restricted Homan until the 5,000 threshold was met.

Somebody guilty of Illegal Entry is by definition a criminal and by extension needs to be shown the door, forthwith.

Certainly a position one can take....but that's not the same thing as saying that somebody guilty of illegal entry is a predator. Or poses any kind of threat to people that's different from any random U.S. citizen.

You can argue that people who committed illegal entry deserve to be deported, but that's different than arguing that that you're making anyone safer by deporting them.

Yes it did. It allowed 5,000 or whatever the number was encounters a day before the President's "Shutdown authority" kicked in.

Again, this is false.

Whether you repeat it once or 1,000 times, it’s still false.

I provided links that explained what was, and was not, in the bill. You should read them.

Certainly a position one can take....

That's, you know, the law :)

....but that's not the same thing as saying that somebody guilty of illegal entry is a predator. Or poses any kind of threat to people that's different from any random U.S. citizen.

I'm not arguing the Predator part. I will say that if you're willing to brazenly break one set of laws you're statistically more likely to break some other set of laws.

You can argue that people who committed illegal entry deserve to be deported, but that's different than arguing that that you're making anyone safer by deporting them.

Au contriare. If I have a population of say, 100 illegal aliens and if say, 2 of them are predators, then even though only 2% of the illegals are predators I've made the US safer by deporting all 100 illegals.

I provided links that explained what was, and was not, in the bill. You should read them.

We covered this months ago in the debates over the bill.

If I have a population of say, 100 illegal aliens and if say, 2 of them are predators, then even though only 2% of the illegals are predators I've made the US safer by deporting all 100 illegals.

And if you have a population of 100 native-born citizens, and 2 of them are predators, then the illegal population is no more dangerous than the native population. And you don't make the U.S. any safer by deporting the 100 illegals than you would if you expelled the same number of native-born citizens. You're not gaining any safety by picking illegal aliens instead of anyone else - the only reduction in absolute crime comes from just having fewer people.

And of course, the rate of crime doesn't go down. If the illegal aliens have the same rate of "predator-ness" as the general population, then the overall rate of crime will remain the same whether you deport or not.

I provided links that explained what was, and was not, in the bill. You should read them.

Quick note: 1 in 5 American adults cannot read or write at a basic level and over half of the adult population struggles with complex reading tasks.
It's likely you are expecting too much of these "normies."

eliminated the ability to shutdown the border altogether - albaby

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

That is a new element you are injecting into the bill. If it somehow in the bill, then that is an ever grater reason to reject the bill.

Rhetorical Question: If the bill prevents shutting down the border, just how many have to be let in to establish there is no shutdown.

Somebody guilty of Illegal Entry is by definition a criminal...

Sure. But what court convicted them of that? They are innocent until proven guilty. That's how our system works. You can't make exceptions based on your own prejudices.

1poorlady has a Philippines accent. She is obviously Asian, and of darker skin tone. If she were pulled-over, she could not prove she is a naturalized citizen because she doesn't carry "papers" (because we are not obligated to in this country). The officer cannot summarily declare she is a criminal that committed "illegal entry", and then put her on a plane to Manila. She has the right (and, as a nation, we have an obligation) to a trial where she -and the State- present evidence, and it is adjudicated.

You can't just waive all that because you feel like it.

And if you have a population of 100 native-born citizens, and 2 of them are predators, then the illegal population is no more dangerous than the native population.

Sure. But I can't deport the native born ones; I have to catch them in the act. But I can get rid of the illegal ones.

Wouldn't have been any different if the bill had passed. The bill didn't restrict Trump (or any future President) from doing anything, and didn't lock in 5K/day as permitted or authorized or anything. - albaby

Then what purpose was served by having the 5,000 / day provisions in the bill at all?

The only difference would have been that there would be more ICE agents, more detention space, and more court throughput.- albaby

Great, I am all for these elements. So again, why was the 5,000 / day wording in the bill in the first place?

If I have a population of say, 100 illegal aliens and if say, 2 of them are predators, then even though only 2% of the illegals are predators I've made the US safer by deporting all 100 illegals.

That's a stupid argument. Sorry to say, but it is.

Then, by extension, if you incarcerate 100 citizens, but only 2 of them are predators, you've made the US safer by incarcerating the 100 citizens.

That is not only stupid, it is barbaric and completely contrary to the system our Founders set up. As Ben Franklin said: it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.

That is a new element you are injecting into the bill. If it somehow in the bill, then that is an ever grater reason to reject the bill.

Rhetorical Question: If the bill prevents shutting down the border, just how many have to be let in to establish there is no shutdown.

Eliminated the proposed new ability to shut down the border that would have been created by the bill.

Under current law, you have the right to request asylum at the border. The proposed border bill would have added a new restriction on that right - if the triggers were hit, then you could be deported immediately and not allowed to request asylum. The bill would not have prevented shutting down the border, because the current law does not allow the border to be shut down - you have the right to request asylum under current law.

So the bill: i) created a new draconian enforcement power; and ii) limited the circumstances in which that new power could be implemented. The fact that the new power was limited to circumstances with large numbers of border encounters did not codify the border encounters as legal - it was just a limitation on when the new enforcement power kicked in.

Albaby

And those were all part of the border bill that the GOP rejected. Which is why folks keep pointing out that it was self-defeating for the GOP to torpedo it, when it would have increased those resources.

Exactly. I would've looked at it as half a loaf is better than none. And it put administrators in some of the process so we didn't have to gear up for judges everywhere. Take that and when you have the votes - get 5,000 reduced to 2,000. Keep the "apply in the right way" (that seemed to have an effect) - use expedited removal on anyone coming in the wrong way.

Speeding up the removal is daunting and it costs a lot of money.

BMH: You've already shown that the 5,000 threshold wouldn't stop you. And you passed up the money to use immigration as a wedge issue and it worked. But we were fielding a new candidate with 2 months left in the election. She had a pretty good showing for only having two months.

I have no idea what the protocols are for review of an application for asylum, but I think we can get the Euros to make changes to allow for reduced immigration as they aren't happy with it as it is now.

Then what purpose was served by having the 5,000 / day provisions in the bill at all?

Because the bill proposed changing the law to allow the complete suspension of the ability to request asylum when the trigger was hit.

Perhaps an analogy will help. A city is having a serious problem with crime and looters, so the city commission proposes giving a new power to the Mayor. They propose giving the Mayor the power to impose a curfew and confine everyone to their homes after dark. But they limit that new power to circumstances when there actually is a very high surge in crime. So they say that the Mayor has the power to impose the curfew and confine folks to their homes only if there have been X arrests over the preceding 48 hours.

This is clearly a bill that does nothing except help the Mayor fight crime....but the opposition party objects. Why is there a trigger? Why does this power to impose a curfew only kick in at X arrests? The right number of arrests is zero. Isn't this just codifying that there should be X crimes?

The answer, of course, is no. The X arrests is just the trigger for the emergency power. It's not codifying that X number of crimes is allowed - it's just describing the circumstances when the curfew can kick in.

That's what the trigger was for. People are allowed to apply for asylum - but if there were so many border encounters that the Border Patrol was being overwhelmed, we would categorically stop people from applying for asylum for a time.

My bad, My use of predator provided a convenient off ramp to avoiding the underlying point that comparing illegals to US population has no meaning except to those who want to dilute focus on the crimes committed by illegals.

Domestic criminals exist. Illegal immigrants committing crimes also exist.

They each deserve attention, domestic crimes are largely a local or state enforcement issue. Criminal aliens are an issue for the feds. Comparing the two groups to one another serves no purpose except to obfuscate the issue of illegals being able to shield themselves from prosecution for lengthy periods by asserting false claims for asylum.

Or poses any kind of threat to people that's different from any random U.S. citizen. - albaby

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

The hapless citizens who have a migrant shelter injected into the neighborhoods disagree. Even some peaceable immigrants sharing a shelter with these predators are afraid of them and are exploited by them.

Comparing the two groups to one another serves no purpose except to obfuscate the issue of illegals being able to shield themselves from prosecution for lengthy periods by asserting false claims for asylum.

Well, it serves the purpose of pointing out that illegals are no more likely to commit any future crimes than anyone else. So talking about them as if they were more inclined to criminal behavior going forward (whether using the label "predator" or talking about them as a public safety issue in the first place) is going to lead to poor public policy decisions.

It's also worth pointing out that filing for asylum (whether a "false claim" or not) does not shield you from prosecution for any crime. Not even the crime of illegal entry, if you've committed it. It only means that you can't be deported until your asylum claim is disposed of, but you can be prosecuted for any crime you've committed.

The hapless citizens who have a migrant shelter injected into the neighborhoods disagree. Even some peaceable immigrants sharing a shelter with these predators are afraid of them and are exploited by them.

And people are afraid of lots of U.S. citizens as well, and are exploited by U.S. citizens too. The issue isn't whether there exist bad people who are illegal immigrants, because every group of people contains some bad people. The question is whether there's any actual basis for arguing that illegal aliens are any more dangerous than Americans at large.

but if there were so many border encounters that the Border Patrol was being overwhelmed, we would categorically stop people from applying for asylum for a time.

Tom Homan is providing that no legislation which proves the 5,000 limit triggering extraordinary power is unnecessary. We have shifted into a discussion of border crossing, a problem that has been solved.

What we are working on now is to eject the criminals among the hundreds of thousands of sunday school teachers that Biden welcomed into our country.

Mungofitch shared this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/ca...

Rhetorical Question: If the bill prevents shutting down the border, just how many have to be let in to establish there is no shutdown.

YOu have a deep misunderstanding of that old bill. Probably because Trump and all of his media friends (like Fox) lied to you. And you apparently like being lied to because you never seem to understand when you have been lied to.

First, the bill didn't prevent shutting down the border. Any of the reasons already existing could still be used to shut the border. The bill would have added another reason to shut the border.

Second, NO ONE HAS TO BE LET IN!!! Let me say that again. No one had to be let in to shut the border under the proposed bill. If there was an average of 5000 per day simply presenting themselves at the border, that would be a reason to shut the border. None of those presenting themselves had to be let in. All 5000 could be immediately turned away for any reason that allows us to turn away someone at the border, and that would trigger the border closing.

That second one seems to be the one that has tripped up the mindless MAGA followers. You all are hung up on letting people in - because that is the lie you have been fed.

--Peter

I would've looked at it as half a loaf is better than none.

That is the basic problem with Trump - a problem he seems to have instilled in many of his followers.

They can't see half a loaf as better then none. If they don't get the whole loaf, they see the other side as winning and themselves as losing. They would rather torpedo the entire thing than get part of what they want just to keep the other side from getting anything they may want. They are strictly win/lose. And if the other side isn't losing, they aren't winning.

Trump - and by extension many of his followers - is incapable of compromise. It is either they win or you lose. And as long as you are losing, they are happy. They see your loss as a win for them even if they get nothing.

Looking at things from that lens explains an awful lot of Trump. When compromise is a dirty word, both sides losing is better than compromise. The only acceptable outcomes are win/lose and lose/lose.

--Peter

So the bill: i) created a new draconian enforcement power; and ii) limited the circumstances in which that new power could be implemented. The fact that the new power was limited to circumstances with large numbers of border encounters did not codify the border encounters as legal - it was just a limitation on when the new enforcement power kicked in.

No.

i) What "draconian enforcement power"? There is no such thing as "enforcement power" at all if the Chief Executive chooses not to do anything to secure the border. What possible indication was there that the democrats ever took the southern border seriously before public opinion effectively was so overwhelmingly in favor of the GOP?

ii) The bill gave every democrat President an excuse to allow 5,000 people a day - and more resources to process them in faster - before this alleged new power could take hold. At the 5,000 trigger the democrat merely says, "Okay, that's it. No more today!" and the caravans merely camp out in Mexico for a week to wait their turn.

The bill was crap for another reason: It provided an incentive to be one of the lucky 5,000 that happens to rush the border on a given day. That would have acted as a rather large magnet pulling more people up the US.

Second, NO ONE HAS TO BE LET IN!!! Let me say that again. No one had to be let in to shut the border under the proposed bill.

Sigh. You type this, and then type "mindless" a few lines down.
Now I'm wondering if you cast a reflection in mirrors.

So talking about them as if they were more inclined to criminal behavior going forward (whether using the label "predator" or talking about them as a public safety issue in the first place) is going to lead to poor public policy decisions.

This is the crux of the immigrant crime issue.

Nobody wants the criminals. But we don’t want the erosion of constitutional protections- even for criminals

But it seems we have a president who is using the former (immigrant criminals) to achieve the destruction of the latter (constitutional protections).

And that way leads to the destruction of constitutional protections for all of us.

And that way leads to the destruction of constitutional protections for all of us.

One is tempted to recite a "first they came for ..." litany, but those are getting well overused these days, even if the message is on point.

--Peter

" It allowed 5,000 or whatever the number was encounters a day before the President's "Shutdown authority" kicked in." - Dumbass Dope

Right. Now answer this: without the bill, how many people can enter before the president's shutdown authority kicks in?

The answer is infinite, every single non-U.S. citizen could come to the U.S. border as a refugee and the president would not have the authority to shut it down. There is no presidential shutdown authority right now. The bill added a tool that the president could use to protect the border. It took nothing away.

I know you are embarrassingly bad at math (see your whole divide by zero fiasco), but please explain how having one extra tool that did not exist before to fight immigration is bad? You realize X+1 > X right?

"We went over this." - More Dumbass Dope

Yes, we know. Albaby spent hours and hours explaining it to you and even provided links and refuted all of your links to crazy websites and yet you still can't figure it out. Talk about teaching a pig to sing.......

"It was a horribly bad bill that was meant to cement the open border in US law. "

That is your opinion and a horribly formed ignorant opinion at that. Not only are you laughably unable to accurately describe what was in the bill and why it is bad, but you are laughably unable to accurately describe your opponents views. I mean seriously, how about trying a little bit to not look like an idiot?

Fox News: Democrats want open borders.

Dope: All you Democrats want open borders. Fox News told me this.

Almost every Democrat on these boards: No. That isn't true. That isn't what we want. We want well regulated and closed borders that deal with offenders in a humane manner and within the rule of law.

Dope: You are all lying. Fox News tells me you all want open borders. If you disagree with the illegal methods I prefer, that must mean you want open borders.

What a frickin idiot.

You can’t grasp the fact that your Fuhrer is a liar:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna136656

You go to such extremes to defend the indefensible that it makes you appear to be really, really stupid.

You can’t grasp the fact that your Fuhrer is a liar:

Any but the dimmest of dim bulbs knows Trump is a pathological liar. They know that. They just don't care.

" It allowed 5,000 or whatever the number was encounters a day before the President's "Shutdown authority" kicked in."

Dope voiced earlier that he doesn't believe in the rule of law unless it's his interpretation of the law. I assume he's like other MAGA who are in "Europe be damned" mode. The Geneva convention is just another Euro mess we don't need to pay attention to. We did ignore it on waterboarding, but we learned it from Filipinos, who learned it from the Spanish. The original waterboarding consisted of forcing them to drink water and then pounding on the stomach, and some would die - which is terrible and is torture. Induing the felling of drowning came later - don't know who perfected that.

Some countries withdrew from the land mine convention. Adios

Dope voiced earlier that he doesn't believe in the rule of law unless it's his interpretation of the law

What is this?
Now we’re just making things up out of thin air.

You do you.

What is this?
Now we’re just making things up out of thin air.

The convo you had with Albaby in which he told you how the law worked and what interfered with what you wanted to do? You didn't present a different legal point of view, you just thought what Albaby said could be ignored, it wasn't reality. Most of the Maga I talk to have some view like that - coupled with resentment at back East, Washington, Europeans, 401k-latte-sipping-avocado-toasters.

And now Mike is out here complaining about judges. The rest of us are wondering how enforcement happens, and I'm pretty certain we're going to find out at some point. Hope the rule of law holds - it's all we've got.

The convo you had with Albaby in which he told you how the law worked and what interfered with what you wanted to do?

Which convo was this? If you're going to make accusations, you need to do better. Go find a quote in context and post that rather than throwing innuendo out there - if you want to get into to it with another poster and make accusations, then don't hide behind somebody else. That's weak. Get in there and be a part of the debate.

I actually logged out to see who you were replying to. LOLOLOLOL. That guy has had anger issues for going on 20 years; I see he still hasn't gotten any better.

So you have a choice: you can get in the game and debate, or you can rage into the void and be ignored like the other guy. Choice is yours.

Can we stop referring to people as “illegals”? The normalization of fascist language is not something you should be participating in. Leave that to dope.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

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