Post New

Mitt Romney: “I think the border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn't want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is is really appalling."

Nixon interfered with getting out of Vietnam. Reagan interfered with getting hostages out of Iran. Appalling is the GOPs new normal.

Mitt Romney: “I think the border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn't want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is is really appalling."

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

We sovereignty seekers will get a better deal under Trump. Even if Trump loses, we still will get a better deal if we gain strength in the Senate. No deal now won't hurt Trump since he already is Hitler, so waiting a year makes sense to me. Anything passed now won't stem the tide anyway.

Mitt Romney: “I think the border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn't want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is is really appalling."

What's even more appalling is that there are sitting Senate and House GOP members who are taking their marching orders from Trump.

We sovereignty seekers will get a better deal under Trump. Even if Trump loses, we still will get a better deal if we gain strength in the Senate. No deal now won't hurt Trump since he already is Hitler, so waiting a year makes sense to me. Anything passed now won't stem the tide anyway.

Ace of Spades summed up Mitt's rather poor logic earlier today:

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=408055

Every single year, the "Gang of Traitors" proposes the same laundry list:

* More money to process illegals faster
* Mass amnesty for children brought illegally to the US -- the "dreamers" -- and also the adult dependents of the Dreamers. Chain amnesty!
* Work visas for illegals
* A "path to citizenship" for illegals

We keep telling them we want:

* a border wall
* more security
* more deportations
* a sharply narrowed definition of who is permitted to claim "asylum" status, which is how most illegals scheme their way into the country

We keep saying the same thing year after year, and the Gang of Traitors says they're finally going to give us border security -- Border security, in these four steps:

* More money to process illegals faster
* Mass amnesty for children brought illegally to the US -- the "dreamers" -- and also the adult dependents of the Dreamers. Chain amnesty!
* Work visas for illegals
* A "path to citizenship" for illegals

Wait...

that's...

that's the exact same thing you've "offered" us since 2002... <--- Spot on.

Yup. If Mitt likes his deal, Mitt can explain WHY he likes his deal and what's in it for the people who actually give a rip about national security.

BMHWe sovereignty seekers will get a better deal under Trump.

Are you talking sovereign citizen? I hope not. So are you seeking sovereignty for a state, or sovereignty under the Supremacy Clause for the Federal Government?

You might be talking about states seeking sovereignty over a state border with a foreign country? So you are not going to cooperate with finding a legislative way to deal with the border situation and claim state sovereignty over the border? Is that what you mean?

Please flesh out what you mean by "sovereignty seekers".

Anything passed now won't stem the tide anyway.

The only things that might stem migration from the south are machine guns at the border...

..or the right wing fully embracing Planned Parenthood, all forms of birth control, and becoming pro-choice.

We keep telling them we want:

* a border wall
We are building more of the wall. A large number of "illegals" fly in, overstay their Visa, and stay here. How is the wall going to help with that? It doesn't.

* more security You mean border agents? That request is in the bill.

* more deportations
If you supply more processing, more people get deported earlier. So processing helps.

* a sharply narrowed definition of who is permitted to claim "asylum" status, which is how most illegals scheme their way into the country

Add that they must have applied and been denied in countries they pass through and you can deport a lot quicker. It's a reasonable request that narrows those allowed in. You can make reasonable exceptions.

But there is no incentive for Republicans to come to the table if you are easily manipulated into blaming Democrats.

Please flesh out what you mean by "sovereignty seekers". - Lapsody

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

Sorry, I don't consider so many levels of sovereignty are under attack.

I stand with Abbott, along with damn near every Texan living outside of Austin, plus the Governors of 24 states. And I think all the Border State governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from crime. States are also sovereign.

However when posted, I will admit I only had US Sovereignty on my mind.

..or the right wing fully embracing Planned Parenthood, all forms of birth control, and becoming pro-choice. - sano

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

Not sure how your assertion is germane to the question under discussion.

That said, I don't think Planned Parenthood, as it is presently organized, should be receiving dollars from US Taxpayers. There are plenty of others that should stand on their own too so I am not just picking on PP.

OTOH, much to your surprise I'm sure, is that I am pro-choice and wish that SCOTUS had left Roe alone. Under Roe, we had finally settled into an uneasy equilibrium that was way better than what we have now.

bighairymike: And I think all the Border State governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from crime.

Well, then they better start lockin' up those natural born 'muricans.

Today, immigrants are 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated than are U.S.-born individuals who are white, the study finds. And when the analysis is expanded to include Black Americans — whose prison rates are higher than the general population — the likelihood of an immigrant being incarcerated is 60 percent lower than of people born in the United States.

https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-betwe...

https://www.nber.org/papers/w31440

bighairymike: And I think all the Border State governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from crime.

CO: Well, then they better start lockin' up those natural born 'muricans.

>>Today, immigrants are 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated than are U.S.-born individuals who are white, the study finds. And when the analysis is expanded to include Black Americans — whose prison rates are higher than the general population — the likelihood of an immigrant being incarcerated is 60 percent lower than of people born in the United States.<<

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

We agree on this. We have a crime problem and criminals, at least the ones with long rap sheets, should not be getting out on bail. And what's up with CA having a stupid law that promotes shop lifting. And liberal DA's who won't file charges. I have no problem getting tougher on crime, lack of consequences continues to fuel this curse on law abiding citizens just trying to live their lives.

Certainly more needs to be done to address crime committed by American criminals but their is no necessity to diminish border enforcement to do so. Let's do what is best for the USA and do both. Some would call this "Putting America First", catchy.

We are building more of the wall

No we’re not. Biden is doing all he can to open the border. See him fighting Abbott every step of the way. And no, him building 29 yards of fence 3 years in doesn’t count.

democrats are responsible for the mess. We have the policies you want. Just own up to it.

Here’s a trivia fact. What does every single illegal immigrant have in common?

Their first act was to break the law of their new country.

DOPE:We are building more of the wall

No we’re not.

OH YES WE ARE - AND THIS IS THE TEXAS TRIBUNE

Biden administration presses forward with border wall plans in Texas, angering allies

Even as the president says the barriers don’t work, his administration says it will waive environmental laws to build them quickly.

Democrats, environmentalists and advocates for migrants are expressing anger this week as President Joe Biden’s administration continues to push forward with plans to build sections of border wall along parts of Texas’ border with Mexico.

Biden says he has no choice but to continue building the wall, and in a public filing that went into effect Thursday, his administration gave notice that it intends to waive 26 laws and regulations in order to “take immediate action” to build a few miles of new barrier in Starr County.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/05/biden-bord...

Biden is doing all he can to open the border.

OH NO HE ISN'T. I've watched as Biden retained Title 42, then I saw he actually tried to duplicate Title 42 in a bureaucratic way. So he's done everything to try and keep the power to turn back immigrants, and Albaby has explained this to you multiple times.

We have the policies you want. Just own up to it.

You don't have the policies unless Trump becomes a dictator and ignores Congress and the Supreme Court. What we want is legislation passed that will give any President, Republican or Democrat, better administrative tools to work with. The admin tools we have don't work, and your fearless leader has instructed Congress not to cooperate on legislation so he can use it as a campaign issue, when he didn't fare well with it himself except for Title 42.

Biden is building 30 yards of wall after necessity forced him to.

Zero credit.

The border is the way it is because Biden wants it that way.

Dope1: Ace of Spades summed up Mitt's rather poor logic earlier today...We keep telling them we want:

* a border wall
* more security
* more deportations
* a sharply narrowed definition of who is permitted to claim "asylum" status, which is how most illegals scheme their way into the country


Dopes1's sources now consist of Ace of Spades and End Wokeness on Twitter (X).

Dementia Don promised you a big beautiful border wall fully paid for by Mexico. Plus, he had majorities in the House and the Senate his first two years as president. If you don't have that big beautiful border wall you have no one to blame but the republicans in Congress and Dementia Don.

If you guys want "more security," then meet Biden's request for funds to hire 1,000 more U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, as well as 1,300 more Border Patrol agents on the Southwest border, new technology, including non-intrusive inspection equipment to detect drugs, like fentanyl and other illegal substances, an additional 300 Border Patrol processing coordinators to work alongside Border Patrol agents, and 1,600 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officers to help hear asylum claims and expedite removals from the United States.

As albaby1 has repeatedly established, the current border system was designed for yesterday's border issues, not today's border crisis.

More deportations?

The Biden administration is removing 3.5 times as many people per month as the Trump administration did.

During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests—what it calls “encounters”—in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December 31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.

Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3 months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million—51 percent—while releasing only 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority of those arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority.

As for a narrower definition of "asylum" status, that's up to Congress and the courts, not the president. Right now under U.S. law, people who flee their countries because they fear persecution can apply for asylum.

So you'll need to take that up with Mike Johnson who's said he's taking his marching orders from Dementia Don, the guy who didn't want to address the Covid-19 pandemic because he'd rather watch hundreds of thousands of Americans die than take actions that might hurt his bid for reelection.

In a repeat performance, Dementia Don and his republican cult would rather not solve the border crisis if it might harm him at the voting booth.


https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-w...

Dope: Blah, blah, blah Fox talking point. Skips the stuff that shows he's wrong.

If you guys want "more security," then meet Biden's request for funds to hire 1,000 more U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, as well as 1,300 more Border Patrol agents on the Southwest border - co

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

You are assuming that the above will lead to border security. Not at all certain. What is in the bill to stop Joe from using most or all of the new 2,300 to increase uptake capacity? What about the proposal actually decreases the arrival rate?

The answer is we can't know because nothing has been written down for the rest of us to see. This negotiation has been going on for several months now and still all we have is rumors.

* a border wall
* more security
* more deportations
* a sharply narrowed definition of who is permitted to claim "asylum" status....

As noted several times, no specific descriptions of the proposed compromises are available to the public. But almost certainly at least three of the four above were part of it, and probably all four. The negotiators specifically talked about more funding for more border patrol agents (which would be a GOP ask), and more funding for the immigration courts which has the effect of increasing deportations). And the negotiators were socializing with the Democratic base the likelihood that there would be a revision to asylum criteria, which is a clear indication that changes to those regulations were in play. As for the fourth element, the wall, Democratic opposition has mostly been based on the fact that such a thing is useless, not any philosophical objection (as was clear when that was put on the table back when Trump was President) - so it's highly unlikely that they would balk at funding it if they could get their deal.

Someone upthread suggested the GOP would be better off waiting until next year - the thought being they could do better with Trump in the WH (if that happens) and maybe control in the Senate. That's wrong, I think. Right now, the Democrats are putting all of the above on the table - and forcing their immigrant advocacy faction in the base to just eat it - so they can get Ukraine funding. Democrats are willing to swallow their distaste for the narrower asylum criteria (which many have a moral and philosophical objection to) in order to meet the moment on Ukraine. That disappears by next year.

Dope: Blah, blah, blah Fox talking point. Skips the stuff that shows he's wrong.

Nope.

And you're sadly misinformed on a few things. Texas puts down razor wire, and Biden comes along and bulldozes it away:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/23/us/us-mexico-border...

‘This is not over,’ Texas says after Supreme Court lets Biden administration remove razor wire at US-Mexico border

Biden does not want a secure border. Never has.

The negotiators specifically talked about more funding for more border patrol agents

A common democrat trick here is to "hire more Border Patrol agents" and then dedicate them to processing illegals inside the country, not turning them away at the border.

And the negotiators were socializing with the Democratic base the likelihood that there would be a revision to asylum criteria

This needs to be the centerpiece of the bill, given that the loopholes are driving the surge.

Someone upthread suggested the GOP would be better off waiting until next year - the thought being they could do better with Trump in the WH (if that happens) and maybe control in the Senate. That's wrong, I think. Right now, the Democrats are putting all of the above on the table - and forcing their immigrant advocacy faction in the base to just eat it - so they can get Ukraine funding. Democrats are willing to swallow their distaste for the narrower asylum criteria (which many have a moral and philosophical objection to) in order to meet the moment on Ukraine. That disappears by next year.

I look at it the other way. democrats are hoping the GOP caves and gives them what they want NOW in exchange for a future promise of things the GOP wants. That's the point Ace was making above, that in the 40 years I can remember this being a debate the terms of the debate are consistently laid out in the democrats' favor.

That needs to stop.

The negotiators specifically talked about more funding for more border patrol agents (which would be a GOP ask), - Lapsody

Only with some rock solid assurance those extra resources will be used to decrease flow as opposed to simply increase intake capacity.

Right now, the Democrats are putting all of the above on the table - and forcing their immigrant advocacy faction in the base to just eat it - so they can get Ukraine funding. Democrats are willing to swallow their distaste for the narrower asylum criteria (which many have a moral and philosophical objection to) in order to meet the moment on Ukraine. - Lapsody

I hope you are right but I am not optimistic. Anyway it is all speculative until we see something actual written down and not as one of these release it today, vote on it tomorrow ruses.

A common democrat trick here is to "hire more Border Patrol agents" and then dedicate them to processing illegals inside the country, not turning them away at the border.

What do you mean?

Border patrol agents don't really ever "turn people away" at the border. Nearly all of the border is in the middle of the river; where it's not, there's a fence with the border patrol on our side of the fence. If the Border Patrol is interacting with someone, they're in the U.S. already - and Border Patrol is apprehending them. They're the equivalent of cops, not soldiers - they're not shooting people who are trying to cross, or physically repelling them using force. They arrest those people, who then get expelled later (either immediately through expedited deportation, or later after a hearing).

Do you have any evidence of what you're claiming here? Because it doesn't really make sense.

This needs to be the centerpiece of the bill, given that the loopholes are driving the surge.

They're not loopholes. People who are being persecuted in their homelands are allowed to request asylum. Conditions are terrible in several countries in Latin America, mostly in the Central Triangle, so a lot of people can meet those criteria. You can't change that by closing "loopholes" - you can only change it by excluding some persecuted people from being able to get asylum here. It's not legalistic drafting, but being willing to change the fundamental values of the asylum program.

That's the point Ace was making above, that in the 40 years I can remember this being a debate the terms of the debate are consistently laid out in the democrats' favor.

For the last 40 years, the "grand bargain" efforts have always been trading enhanced border security and increased internal enforcement for paths to citizenship for some portion of the internal population and potential increases in legal migration. Those aren't necessarily "in the Democrats' favor." It's true that because of the way that the U.S. government works, you're never going to get a deal unless the Democrats agree - so you're never going to get a deal that the Democrats come out worse on than the status quo. The same is true of the GOP, which is why all the DREAMERs and everyone else in the country are still in the position they're in, rather than getting legalized.

What immigration hawks have longed for is a proposal that gives them so much, and Democrats so little, that it's a clear loss for Democrats.** Which, obviously, doesn't happen under normal circumstances - because the Democrats would never agree to such a deal, and can always block it in the Senate. Now, because the Democrats are trying to get Ukraine aid through the Congress, the GOP actually does have - for the first time in 40 years - the opportunity to draft a deal that does cause the Democrats to lose on immigration. All hardliner/enforcement stuff, no DREAMER goodies or guest workers. Because they're trading that for the Ukraine aid. But now they can't agree to it, because of the 2024 Presidential election.

Albaby

**Immigration advocates long for the same thing - a proposal that gives them so much, and Republicans so little, that it's a clear loss for the GOP. Which also obviously never happens, even though the Democrats have also had trifectas in the federal government, for the same reason. That kind of deal won't clear the Senate.

Border patrol agents don't really ever "turn people away" at the border.

Then I'll rephrase: Hire Border Patrol agents and allow them to detain and turn people away at the border. Arrest if they're caught with guns or drugs.

They're not loopholes.

I'll rephrase again. Change the law such that a claim of asylum can only be made at a US port of entry. One "compromise" to make with the Open Borders sect (and yes, there is one) is to exclude Mexicans and Cubans from that. Meaning, since Guatemala does not share a border with the US if a Guatemalan or a Venezuelan wants asylum they have to go to a designated port of entry. A Mexican or a Cuban needing asylum could keep doing what they're doing.

I don't happen to support that compromise; I merely offer it up for completeness.

For the last 40 years, the "grand bargain" efforts have always been trading enhanced border security and increased internal enforcement for paths to citizenship for some portion of the internal population and potential increases in legal migration.

What "enhanced border security" has been traded for? The democrats have fought - successfully - literally any effort to step up enforcement or compliance. For 40 years now. Only now that the situation has gotten so untenable for them politically and only because blue cities are now getting the barest fraction of what border towns have been subjected to for decades are they pretending to care. For those of us who have followed the issue for those same decades their statements of We're gonna work with the Republicans this time, we swear ring really hollow.

I grew up in Missouri. Show me. The democrats get to show me they're serious about fixing the problem. At no point in my adult life have I seen anything other than gamesmanship from them.

What immigration hawks have longed for is a proposal that gives them so much, and Democrats so little, that it's a clear loss for Democrats.**

You may want to consider that immigration hawks have effectively gotten 0% of what they've asked for going back to the 1980's. I for one am completely unwilling to allow the democrats to frame the border as anything other than a national security issue at this point.

Then I'll rephrase: Hire Border Patrol agents and allow them to detain and turn people away at the border. Arrest if they're caught with guns or drugs.

That's what would be on the table. Border Patrol agents. The people who detain/arrest the folks who cross the border. They don't have the power to "turn people away" once they're in the country.

Change the law such that a claim of asylum can only be made at a US port of entry.

You could make that change, of course. But that's not a "loophole" type of change. It means that people who are legitimately and actually fleeing persecution from their home countries - people who are absolutely qualified to seek asylum in the U.S. - will be refused asylum and sent back home if they don't come into the country at a specific place. We will refuse asylum to people who deserve asylum, under the values and standards (and international treaty obligations).

What "enhanced border security" has been traded for? The democrats have fought - successfully - literally any effort to step up enforcement or compliance. For 40 years now.

And the GOP has fought - successfully - literally any effort to provide for a pathway for citizenship for migrants that even they acknowledge should be allowed to do so. Like the DREAMERS. Also for 40 years now.

This is what compromise involves. The reason that the GOP hasn't been able to advance its hardline immigration vision is the same reason that the Democrats haven't been able to advance their humanitarian immigration vision. You can't reach a deal unless you reach a deal.

Of course, neither of the above is true in absolutes. Obama was derided as the "Deporter in Chief" by his base, and various GOP Presidents have offered special status for limited numbers of folks (Bush 41 established the first TPS programs, Bush 43 offered special status to Iraqi refugees who helped us, etc.). But generally, the fundamental truth of a stalemate is that neither side is compromising. Not just the Democrats.

For those of us who have followed the issue for those same decades their statements of We're gonna work with the Republicans this time, we swear ring really hollow.

As do the statements of the GOP that "We're gonna work with the Democrats this time, we swear!". Yet every effort to reform the immigration system has failed, usually on the shoals of a protest by conservative talk radio (in the days of Rush) or conservative cable news (in the days of O'Reilly).

You may want to consider that immigration hawks have effectively gotten 0% of what they've asked for going back to the 1980's. I for one am completely unwilling to allow the democrats to frame the border as anything other than a national security issue at this point.

And immigration advocates have effectively gotten 0% of what they've asked for since the Reagan compromise as well. There's a very good reason why nearly two decades later, the DREAMERS are still waiting. Even though they're the "low hanging fruit" of immigration reform for advocates - people brought here against their will as children, sometimes even babies, who have no moral culpability and have never known any other country.

You're perfectly within your rights to be "unwilling" to frame the border in anyway other than your own perspective. But that doesn't change the reality that this is the best opportunity in 40 years for hardliners to get a hawkish immigration proposal through Congress - because this is the first time in 40 years that the Democratic coalition is willing to trade restrictivist immigration proposals for something outside of immigration. There are certainly strategic reasons the GOP might pass that up, but they have nothing to do with moving immigration laws closer to what they claim to want.

..or the right wing fully embracing Planned Parenthood, all forms of birth control, and becoming pro-choice.

And giving a shit about climate change which will likely lead to more migration.

You could make that change, of course. But that's not a "loophole" type of change. It means that people who are legitimately and actually fleeing persecution from their home countries - people who are absolutely qualified to seek asylum in the U.S. - will be refused asylum and sent back home if they don't come into the country at a specific place. We will refuse asylum to people who deserve asylum, under the values and standards (and international treaty obligations).

Or they can...Remain in Mexico or someplace else. The international rules for asylum as I understand them state that you need to be fleeing to a country that borders yours, not just some place else on the globe you want to go to.

So in that vein we're not "refusing asylum". I reject the notion that the United States is the obligatory destination for asylum seekers world wide.

And the GOP has fought - successfully - literally any effort to provide for a pathway for citizenship for migrants that even they acknowledge should be allowed to do so. Like the DREAMERS. Also for 40 years now.

Reagan granted an amnesty in exchange for border security. He never got it. If the democrats expect some concessions, they need to offer some up front with any expectation of the GOP reciprocating.

This is what compromise involves. The reason that the GOP hasn't been able to advance its hardline immigration vision is the same reason that the Democrats haven't been able to advance their humanitarian immigration vision. You can't reach a deal unless you reach a deal.

Not once, never, ever in my lifespan have I seen a democrat bill or a "Gang of 6" bill that wasn't...a democrat bill.
Again, Show Me.

Of course, neither of the above is true in absolutes. Obama was derided as the "Deporter in Chief" by his base

That's because Obama's base was never a bunch to follow the real news. Obama was anything BUT a "deporter in chief". He perfected the art of juicing the numbers to make himself look good:

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deporta...
But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

There has never been nor will there ever be a bigger fraud than one Barack Obama.

As do the statements of the GOP that "We're gonna work with the Democrats this time, we swear!". Yet every effort to reform the immigration system has failed, usually on the shoals of a protest by conservative talk radio (in the days of Rush) or conservative cable news (in the days of O'Reilly).

You just zapped your own argument. There has never been a shortage of Establishment GOP types willing to give the democrats everything they want along the border. Just look at the current bill.

And immigration advocates have effectively gotten 0% of what they've asked for since the Reagan compromise as well.

You mean besides a wide open southern border and vast misuse of the parole system? Besides that?

But that doesn't change the reality that this is the best opportunity in 40 years for hardliners to get a hawkish immigration proposal through Congress - because this is the first time in 40 years that the Democratic coalition is willing to trade restrictivist immigration proposals for something outside of immigration. There are certainly strategic reasons the GOP might pass that up, but they have nothing to do with moving immigration laws closer to what they claim to want.

No one's show me a single thing that the democrats are willing to trade. As with all their proposals, their idea of "compromise" is for the other side to give in while the democrats promise they'll look into what the Republicans want...at some later time, after the democrats have finished laughing at how bad Republicans are at negotiating.

No thanks. As I said, Show Me.

The international rules for asylum as I understand them state that you need to be fleeing to a country that borders yours, not just some place else on the globe you want to go to.

No, that is not true. There is no "first safe country" requirement in international law.

You just zapped your own argument. There has never been a shortage of Establishment GOP types willing to give the democrats everything they want along the border. Just look at the current bill.

And there's never been a shortage of Centrist Democratic types willing to give the GOP what they want along the border, either. That's the point - these immigration negotiations get started because there are sizable blocks on both sides that are willing to move towards what the other side wants. But they get derailed because maximalists prefer the status quo to actually fixing some of the major problems. Which is what's happening right now.

You mean besides a wide open southern border and vast misuse of the parole system? Besides that?

The status quo is the status quo, and has been for 40 years. The southern border isn't wide open - literally millions of people get arrested and detained when they try to cross it, and other than the percentage of folks that are able to establish asylum claims (a small fraction of those who get detained), they end up getting deported in the end.

What have Democrats gained from Congress on immigration in the last 40 years? Seriously? Every effort to reform immigration to provide for a pathway to citizenship - for DREAMERs or anyone else - has died in Congress. The 2007 immigration reform bill died. The 2013 immigration reform bill died. Immigrant advocates have gotten virtually nothing through Congress in forty years, either.

The only major immigration legislation that's passed since the 1986 act was the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act - which was a hardline enforcement bill, pushed through by Clinton as part of his triangulation efforts for the midterm elections. Like his welfare reform and crime bills, modern advocacy groups in the Democratic coalition hate the IIRIRA, because it basically did exactly what you claim never happens - it gave conservative hardliners a lot of stuff they wanted, with virtually nothing to offset it to help immigrants. Which is why it's gone down the memory hole.

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

No one's show me a single thing that the democrats are willing to trade.

Nor has anyone shown me a single thing that Republicans are willing to trade. Seriously - there was a time when they would at least even pay lip service to the idea of normalizing the legal status of DREAMERS by passing....well, the DREAM Act. Even that's gone now. There is literally no reform to the immigration system that the Republicans are willing to trade in exchange for the tighter enforcement they claim is so critical. Which is why the House GOP was threatening to torpedo the current discussions - no matter what the deal was - even before Trump got involved. Because they know there is nothing at all that they want to give the Democrats, no matter what's on the table in exchange.

And there's never been a shortage of Centrist Democratic types willing to give the GOP what they want along the border, either.

Oh? Like who?
Is there a Lindsey Graham border hawk person in the [d] ranks someplace who routinely crosses the aisle and helps the Republicans craft legislation? <-- I threw that last bit in there to disqualify Joe Manchin.

But they get derailed because maximalists prefer the status quo to actually fixing some of the major problems. Which is what's happening right now.

It's hardly "maximalist" to throw at least one piece of meat towards the GOP caucus. Just one.

The status quo is the status quo, and has been for 40 years. The southern border isn't wide open - literally millions of people get arrested and detained when they try to cross it, and other than the percentage of folks that are able to establish asylum claims (a small fraction of those who get detained), they end up getting deported in the end.

Asylees are getting courts dates in 2031. We've established that. That's as close to a de facto amnesty as you're going to get.

Question: When these people fail to show up for their court dates, will the democrats get behind mass deportations? I'll go ahead and answer: absolutely not.

What have Democrats gained from Congress on immigration in the last 40 years? Seriously? Every effort to reform immigration to provide for a pathway to citizenship - for DREAMERs or anyone else - has died in Congress. The 2007 immigration reform bill died. The 2013 immigration reform bill died. Immigrant advocates have gotten virtually nothing through Congress in forty years, either.

From Congress? Nothing. The democrats have managed to block any serious tightening of the border while maintaining a drumbeat for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" which is a fancy euphemism for amnesty programs. What the democrats HAVE gotten is from Obama's Magic Pen, the one that delivers executive action.

Here. I'll give you an example of how it went under Trump. It's actually taught in a fairly even handed way in B-schools for negotiation:

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

Here's how it went.
Talks took off in early 2018, after Trump gave his stamp of approval to bipartisan negotiations. On January 9, the president convened a meeting at the White House with 25 Democratic and Republican members of Congress who had been active on immigration and then–Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen.

Okay. So far so good. What was the deal?

Most lawmakers argued the bill should cover just three issues: (1) protections for Dreamers; (2) beefed-up border security, including Trump’s campaign promise of a border wall between the United States and Mexico; and (3) efforts to reduce immigration based on family ties, sometimes known as chain migration. The scope was narrow, but the inclusion of issues on which they disagreed could give Democrats and Republicans opportunities for integrative negotiations by making tradeoffs.

Great. Always start with a framework that you can build around. Based on this thread some common ground could be found. But what happened?

Dianne Feinstein went to the standard democrat party playbook. You can see real time right here what I've mentioned several times upthread:

Democratic senator Diane Feinstein then made a bold proposal to Trump: “What about a clean DACA bill now, with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure?” She was asking for a bill on a single, Democratic-favored issue—protections for Dreamers—with no other issues on which Republicans could negotiate concessions, such as border security.

A clean DACA bill now, then maybe we'll consider giving you something down the road. Trump actually said 'yes' to this.

Butt....
“Would you be agreeable to that?” Feinstein said.

“Yeah, I would like to do that,” Trump said.

No doubt alarmed, Republican senator and Trump ally Kevin McCarthy interjected: “Mr. President, you need to be clear, though . . . you have to have security. . . .”

“I think that’s what she’s saying,” President Trump said of Feinstein.

“I think she’s saying something different,” said McCarthy. “I’m thinking you’re saying DACA without security,” he said to Feinstein. “Are you talking about security as well?”

Feinstein suggested postponing the security issue.

Because of course she did.

The story finishes with the Gang of 6 going away and negotiating something only to have immigration hard-liners from the GOP blow it all up at the end of the day. I don't know if that's true or not but the main point of the story is how these debates have always gone: democrats insist on an upfront payment for something they never deliver in the future.

It's like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.

Nor has anyone shown me a single thing that Republicans are willing to trade. Seriously - there was a time when they would at least even pay lip service to the idea of normalizing the legal status of DREAMERS by passing....well, the DREAM Act. Even that's gone now. There is literally no reform to the immigration system that the Republicans are willing to trade in exchange for the tighter enforcement they claim is so critical. Which is why the House GOP was threatening to torpedo the current discussions - no matter what the deal was - even before Trump got involved. Because they know there is nothing at all that they want to give the Democrats, no matter what's on the table in exchange.

Welp, hilariously, the closest anyone's come on actually negotiating something...was Trump.

Dope1: Question: When these people fail to show up for their court dates, will the democrats get behind mass deportations? I'll go ahead and answer: absolutely not.

We've gone over this. Either you're not paying attention or you don't like the data. OVERHWELMINGLY, asylum seekers appear for all their hearings.

A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants attend their immigration court hearings, and those who fail to appear in court often did not receive notice or faced hardship in getting to court.

-- 83% of nondetained immigrants with completed or pending removal cases attended all of their hearings.
-- 96% of nondetained immigrants represented by a lawyer attended all of their hearings.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/11...

Asylees are getting courts dates in 2031. We've established that. That's as close to a de facto amnesty as you're going to get.

If true, you'd think Republicans would want to fix that. If there's an eight year backlog in getting court dates, the way to fix that is by putting more resources into the immigration courts. Not only would that reduce (perhaps even to the point of eliminating) the de facto time they get to spend in the country, but a very large number of those people would end up being deported after their hearing. Seems like an easy thing for the GOP to support - eliminate the de facto waiting period and get much of the immigrant population out the door. Is that something you'd get behind?

but a very large number of those people would end up being deported after their hearing. - albaby

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

I have often wondered if these people are held in custody until being physically deported or are they let loose for some period to clean up their affairs and then self deport. You have a knack for administrative details, so do you happen to know anything about this question?

I have often wondered if these people are held in custody until being physically deported or are they let loose for some period to clean up their affairs and then self deport. You have a knack for administrative details, so do you happen to know anything about this question?

I don't. I would suspect it varies from case to case, much like in the criminal justice system. In the domestic criminal courts, some defendants are taken straight from verdict (or sentencing) into custody, others are sentenced and given a later date to report to prison to begin their sentence. I imagine that the same is true in immigration court, and certainly for the folks who are given an order for voluntary departure (rather than a government removal flight).

Biden will shut down the border the day Congress authorizes it. Biden might have to use executive orders if Congress continues to do nothing, but the courts will limit what can be done without Congress doing something.

Statement from President Joe Biden On the Bipartisan Senate Border Security Negotiations, January 26, 2024
"What’s been negotiated would – if passed into law – be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country. It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statement...

And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law."

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

Surely you realize I distust him when he says this since there nothing to actually force him to and once Ukraine has their money, it is back to business as usual. If Biden had any real passion for border security, he could have fixed it back in 21/22 when he had both houses of congress.

"What’s been negotiated would – if passed into law – be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country. It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law."

But Trump says HELL NO! Because even though it would be a win for the country, it might also be seen as a win for Biden and Trump can't stand that thought as it would give him less leverage with his MAGA base. He wants it to be a problem. How sick is that?

And sadly most of the GOP Senators and Congressmen take orders from Trump, so afraid of the rabid MAGA base.

Add to which, if they await their court dates for years, they can have babies. Bouncing bundles of American citizens whom have a legal right to be here. Makes deportation more difficult.

And not even Congress can change that. It would require an amendment to the Constitution.

As pointed out before, that law will outlast Biden. So you can distrust Biden, but eventually the law will be wielded by a POTUS you do support.

BHM:Surely you realize I distust him when he says this since there nothing to actually force him to and once Ukraine has their money, it is back to business as usual. If Biden had any real passion for border security, he could have fixed it back in 21/22 when he had both houses of congress.

"The Republican Party retained their majority in both the House and the Senate, and, with inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017, attained an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 109th Congress in 2005."

So did Trumpolina. Let me reemphasize Albabys point that the significant blocks on both sides that want to pass immigration reform get torpedoed by those who like the status quo, because it's and easy vote getter issue. Right now that's Trump. It's not a "both sides" issue, the people who like the issue are normally Republicans. I remember De Santis bemoaning the fact that Abbott had a border with Mexico and he didn't.

So Abbott gets to grand stand in stand off against the Feds and string barb wire as if that makes a difference, but it's a good show for Q and all those whose main personality if a distrust of the government. Historically that's fine to an extent as the Midwest to the West, and the South always distrusted the Fed, but why they trust the state beats me. Historical stats show that state governments are far more corrupt than the Fed. So State govs get in on it just by talking about sending the National Guard. So it isn't like y'all are seen as beacons of trustworthiness, more like the corrupt, immoral, conspiracy loving RW nutjobs we have to deal with.

Biden can, if he wants to activate the National Guard, but he's reserved and not rash in his moves. I like that.

So it looks like we are doomed to have the RW grandstanding about a border they have a chance to fix, but for the nth time aren't and this time because Trumpolina wants to grandstand on the border issue.

bighairymike: If Biden had any real passion for border security, he could have fixed it back in 21/22 when he had both houses of congress.

They tried. The parliamentarian wouldn't allow it in a reconciliation bill. Outside of reconciliation, democrats needed 60 votes, not a simple majority, for passage and republications being republicans weren't interested in solving the border crisis.

So Abbott gets to grand stand in stand off against the Feds and string barb wire as if that makes a difference - Lapsody

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

I am sure there is a lot more border reporting on local news etc down here so you may not see the effectiveness of razor wire. It has really opened my eyes. Places where thousands crossed per day with all the associated chaos are now quiet and serene. No one around, you could have a picnic. Looking across the river into Mexico, no one over there either.

"As if..."?? In short, it makes a big difference.

Razor wire is deployed in giant tangled mats down to the rivers edge and into the river itself for five or six feet. Then the mat extends up on to shore about ten feet and stops at the foot of a shipping container, lined up end to end, each container topped with more coils of razor wire. Nobody is getting through that, they don't even try.

Pretty cheap, easy to deploy, easy to repair as needed. Now if the Governors of NM and AZ would join in, we could funnel all the migrants through CA, what's not to like.

bighairymike: If Biden had any real passion for border security, he could have fixed it back in 21/22 when he had both houses of congress.

They tried. The parliamentarian wouldn't allow it in a reconciliation bill. Outside of reconciliation, democrats needed 60 votes, not a simple majority, for passage and republications being republicans weren't interested in solving the border crisis. - CO

I don't recall that but will take your work for it. But not having seen it I would bet a lot of what it contained we will be seeing again in GARSA.

It is cheaper than that stupid wall, and probably about as effective. The issue in TX will be that once they are past the halfway point in the river, they are on US soil, and therefore entitled to request asylum. By denying them that, Abbott is in violation of federal law, and should probably be arrested.

At least until the law is changed. Which probably isn't likely because it energizes Republican voters. It's too useful an issue to try to resolve it. Or even improve it. Then they can continue to enrage you and blame Dems. For Reps, that's a two-fer.

For me, immigration doesn't even break into my top five issues. I recognize there is a problem, and I think it inexcusable that an improvement will fail due to spite, and a campaign issue for Trump. But I suspect I can tolerate the status quo better than you. I'm far more concerned about Chinese and Russian belligerence, strengthening bonds with allies, dprk belligerence, a nuclear Iran (thanks, Trump!), and the economy. Just for a start

BHM:I am sure there is a lot more border reporting on local news etc down here so you may not see the effectiveness of razor wire. It has really opened my eyes. Places where thousands crossed per day with all the associated chaos are now quiet and serene. No one around, you could have a picnic. Looking across the river into Mexico, no one over there either.

No. I'm familiar with it. I lived in a compound with 4 strands of barb wire on top of a six foot concrete wall with broken bottle glass embedded in the top. It didn't stop two sneak thieves, one got my wife's karaoke. But she wanted razor wire. I liked the razor wire too, but 1. There is always a way around for the dedicated, 2. The law and courts have ruled against the razor wire. We're much better off to come to an agreement and change the law, and do it now It's just a grand stand ploy and a distraction from the dishonor of not living up to our commitments to democracy in the Ukraine with the Euros and the world, and failure to deal rationally with the border problem. If we fail to fund Ukraine, we have started the decline of the USA.

That legislation is a poison pill, design to limit Trump if he gets the office.

1pgI'm far more concerned about Chinese and Russian belligerence, strengthening bonds with allies, dprk belligerence, a nuclear Iran (thanks, Trump!), and the economy. Just for a start

Chinese and Russian belligerence, strengthening bonds with allies, and funding to Ukraine are mixed together. If we fail to fund Ukraine, we lose trust with our allies, and China ad Russia see opportunity.

Dprk belligerence?

Nuclear Iran is up there

It already started with the election of Trump in 2016. Biden is trying to slow it down, but MAGA persists. Even if Trump loses in Nov, even if MAGA never wins another thing, the movement he started will continue to weaken us. Those people aren't going to go quietly into the night.

DPRK has tested nukes, is sending missiles flying over Japan, and it's even deploying a ballistic missile submarine.

And, as you say, if the US continues down the path of clowndom, who knows what he will do. Also Putin and Xi. Actually, we probably know what Putin and Xi will do.

We are truly pathetic. No nation should rely on us for anything if MAGA scores significant victories this November.

"Surely you realize I distust him when he says this since there nothing to actually force him to and once"

Yes. We know you distrust him because your political masters have trained you quite well to hate him because you allow them to.

Good boy. Maybe they will play fetch with you later.

What is odd is that you seem to fully trust a guy who can't go more than two seconds without lying to you. Remember the guy who was going to get Mexico to pay for a wall? They guy who was going to pass a better healthcare bill in two weeks? The guy who tore up the agreement with Iran preventing them from getting nukes because he could easily negotiate a better deal?

All lies. Yet you foolishly believe him.

You routinely use sources of information that openly admit they will lie to you. Yet you foolishly continue to use them.

Perhaps you should start using better sources of information and actually start using your brain. Try something different.

"If Biden had any real passion for border security, he could have fixed it back in 21/22 when he had both houses of congress."

That is extremely naive. It completely ignores this thing in the Senate called a filibuster. The bill as currently negotiated would never have gotten 60 votes in the Senate in 21/22. Senate Republicans had no reason to want to play ball on that back then.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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