The Border The Crisis The Last Straw

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (154 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
    Sharlee01posted 3 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/16897216_f1024.jpg

    Established this thread to provide a platform for discussing the myriad challenges we are presently facing at the border. My instinct suggests that in the coming weeks to months, we'll encounter numerous new and pre-existing issues related to our flawed immigration system. I believe the New York Times article serves as a valuable starting point.

    Additionally, there's news today about House Republicans taking a significant vote, signaling a potential move towards impeaching Mayorkas, as the border situation becomes a focal point for the 2024 campaign.

    "On President Biden’s first day in office, he paused nearly all deportations. He vowed to end the harsh practices of the Trump administration, show compassion toward those wishing to come to the United States and secure the southern border.

    The authors have collectively reported on the border and immigration politics for more than two decades. They reported from Washington.

    How the Border Crisis Shattered Biden’s Immigration Hopes
    An examination of President Biden’s record reveals how he failed to overcome a surge in new arrivals and political obstacles in both parties."   Want more read further...  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/us/p … ation.html

    House Republicans taking a key vote toward impeaching Mayorkas as border becomes 2024 campaign issue

    WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are ready to take a key vote Tuesday toward impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over what they call his “willful and systematic” refusal to enforce immigration laws as border security becomes a top 2024 election issue.

    The Homeland Security Committee is pushing through a day-long hearing on two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, a rare charge against a Cabinet official unseen in nearly 150 years, as Republicans make GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s hard-line deportation approach to immigration their own.

    “The actions and decisions of Secretary Mayorkas have left us with no other option but to proceed with articles of impeachment,” said Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn.
    https://apnews.com/article/mayorkas-hom … bc9d7ce448
    https://hubstatic.com/16897214_f1024.jpg

    1. Willowarbor profile image61
      Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      One of the charges: "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law".  I don't see the mention of the specific law or laws though? 

      But a variety of legal scholars have poured cold water on the legal arguments Republicans are using to support their impeachment effort.

      Ross Garber, a Tulane law professor who has represented many Republican officeholders as both the prosecution and defense in impeachment cases, told CNN that House Republicans have not presented evidence of impeachable offenses.

      "I think that what the House Republicans are asserting is that Secretary Mayorkas is guilty of maladministration," Garber said. "At least as framed right now, the charges don't rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor."

      Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who served under Republican President George W. Bush, wrote in a recent op-ed, "as a former federal judge, U.S. attorney and assistant attorney general - I can say with confidence that, for all the investigating that the House Committee on Homeland Security has done, they have failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar."

      Constitutional law expert and Fox talking head Jonathan Turley, who has been called by Republicans to serve as a witness in hearings, said, "There is no current evidence he is corrupt or committed an impeachable offense," and 25 law professors wrote in an open letter that impeaching Mayorkas would be "utterly unjustified as a matter of constitutional law."

      More performative politics served up by MAGA.  They don't want progress, they want a campaign issue.
      Mike Johnson says "Our duty is to do right by the American people, to protect the people.". Can anyone tell me exactly how they are going about that?  Tanking a bipartisan bill that addresses immigration with more than band aids?
       
      Let's be clear,  the Biden administration has already detained or deported more immigrants than under Trump.

      What of  to the numerous lawsuits brought by GOP states seeking to block Mayorkas’s policies for managing the border, including some that largely mirrored Trump-era directives or were opposed by immigration groups.?

      Rep. Dan Goldman.."Republicans went to court to sue him to stop him from implementing the policies to address the border. So your own party is sabotaging and undermining this administration’s efforts to address the border while you are trying to impeach him by saying that they’re not addressing the border. The hypocrisy is the least of it,”

      It is absolute hypocrisy for demanding more from Mayorkas, while denying the department the additional funds it needs.

      Representative Dina Titus summed up MAGA'S latest move accurately... She accused her colleagues at the hearing of “shoveling the same old sh*t and calling it sugar.”.

    2. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
      Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      How about passing the bipartisan legislation congress just agreed on?

      1. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Before offering any comments, I aim to gain a better understanding of the bill. Today, I came across a report indicating that the bill is currently in the process of being drafted and is expected to be ready for Congress to review soon.

        I will stay optimistic that the bill will find common ground and provide effective solutions that address the issues. Ideally, we won't encounter temporary fixes, as we've witnessed that makeshift solutions tend to be ineffective. I truely feel at this point --    For an extended period, Congress has disappointed us by not delivering clear-cut immigration laws that contribute to a secure border and promote merit-based immigration with well-vetted asylum laws. Despite having full control, various administrations have come and gone without enacting much-needed immigration reforms.  So, in this respect, I feel Congress has long failed us.

  2. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 3 months ago

    Anyone remember 2018 Trump?

    "President Donald Trump said Tuesday he would sign legislation to extend DACA protections for undocumented young people in exchange for increased border security measures, adding that after that, he would be open to comprehensive immigration reform."

    When you talk about comprehensive immigration reform, which is where I would like to get to eventually,” Trump said, turning to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., “If we do the right bill here, we are not very far away, we’ve done most of it. You want to know the truth, Dick, if we do this properly, DACA, you’re not so far away from comprehensive immigration reform. And if you want to take it that further step, I’ll take the heat. I don’t care,” said Trump.

    Get a load of this....

    My positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with,” the president later told the press pool. “If they come to me with things I’m not in love with, I’m going to do it, because I respect them,” Trump said.... LOL I don't think the composition of people has changed since that time. 

    2024 Trump...he'll take the heat for tanking the bill....

    "As the leader of our party, there is zero chance I will support this horrible open borders betrayal of America,” Trump told his supporters on Saturday. “I’ll fight it all the way. A lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they’re blaming it on me. I say, that’s okay. "Please blame it on me. Please.”

    Question...why didn't Trump fix immigration when Republicans at that time controlled the house, the Senate and the White House? 

    During Trump’s presidency, Congress did not pass any bill to revamp the immigration system.  His bill?  112 Republicans voted against it even after he called on them to support it!  He couldn't get it done then but we can get it done now and it is some how reasonable to tank those efforts because MAGA feels continued Band-Aids in the form of temporary executive orders are preferable?

    Please, make it make sense because it looks like absolute hypocrisy.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      "Question...why didn't Trump fix immigration when Republicans at that time controlled the house, the Senate and the White House? "

      This question is very pertinent and should have us all stopping and stepping back and looking at the question. Then clearly ask why for decades we have witnessed administrations that have witnessed the various immigration issues pleading Amearca, had the total Congress wrapped up -- and neither side did zip.

      IMO Obama, as well as Trump, made some sound decisions to yes, add some band-aid that were in some ways effective to push back.

      Regarding Trump at this moment in time, the now, the current --  The bill looks bad from what I have seen, a nothing type burger that offers nothing but more deeply engraved words on Biden's invitation. I would think Trump may have a bit more info on the bill than the general public. One could also surmise that Trump intends to grasp this crisis to campaign on. I am sure he will share any that has occurred at the border on Biden's time, and share his own experiences putting some policies in place to try to stop the flow of migrants into the country.

      I hope many will cool their jets and come to the realization the bill we are banding about has not been fully drafted... Not sure I am willing to turn away and accept media leaks, Congressmen, and women's blurbs.

      So do we really want to defend or debate a bill we know little about?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        "So do we really want to defend or debate a bill we know little about?"

        "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"  Nancy Pelosi

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          When I comment, I find myself pondering if it's time to acknowledge that perhaps "we, the people," are defending misinformation without sufficient knowledge. It's perplexing how anyone can overlook the issues we've observed over decades, especially Biden's neglect of the problem for 3.5 years, only to now shift blame elsewhere. It seems utterly absurd.

      2. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        according to negotiators who are finalizing the details before they release the full text of the legislation, possibly later this week. Here's what we know:

        Migrants would not just be released into the US.
        Migrants would not be able to just cross the border illegally under the new bill. It would end the practice of "catch and release," in which Border Patrol agents release migrants into the U.S. while they await immigration hearings.

        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.  That is actually a huge difference from how it is currently handled.

        What about migrants crossing illegally with asylum claims?

        Migrants who come to the U.S. border at official ports of entry would be 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.

        If they failed their initial asylum interviews, they would be removed immediately.

        But migrants who passed the asylum interview would get to stay in the country for an additional 90 days until their asylum cases were decided. In the meantime, they would receive work authorizations. Once their cases were adjudicated, they would qualify for a path to citizenship.   Sounds like an improvement to me.

        In addition to those provisions, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims.

        If the border were shut down, up to 1,400 migrants per day who tried to enter at official ports of entry would still qualify to have their asylum claims considered. The rest would be turned away.

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

        I don't find any negative in this bill. 

        But MAGA Rep Troy Nehls urged Congress not to do anything about the border at all.

        “Congress doesn’t have to do anything to secure our southern border and fix it. Joe Biden, you destroyed it, you can fix it on your own through executive order,”

        What kind of ignorant thinking is this?  Laws / legislation ARE  the job of Congress.  Does this man not understand that.

        It’s not clear which Trump executive order exactly Nehls sees as inspiration. But many of  Trump's attempts to single-handedly rewrite immigration law were found to be unconstitutional.

        My observation of MAGA has lead me to the conclusion that they are very quick to tear down, attack and destroy but almost never have a vision for building or reforming anything. 

        If the mantra is burn it all down, tell me what happens the day after.  At some point, there has to be more than grievance.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          While I respect your observation, it's important to note that within any political movement, there is a diversity of opinions and approaches. It's possible that the more visible or vocal elements may focus on criticism, but it doesn't represent the entire spectrum of individuals within the MAGA movement. Engaging in constructive dialogue with proponents of MAGA might provide a more nuanced understanding of their perspectives on building or reforming aspects of governance. Generalizations can limit the potential for productive conversations and hinder the exploration of shared goals or concerns.

          Trump has made it evident that he views the bill as problematic, dismissing it as a political maneuver. It's crucial to step back and recognize that we are in the midst of a presidential campaign. Personally, I find it hard to believe that Republicans won't leverage the significant border crisis as an opportunity to reclaim the White House. While I respect your research, it appears there might be an omission of the political aspect in your analysis.

          "Please, make it make sense because it looks like absolute hypocrisy."

          I'm quite skeptical about the Biden administration's poor timing and audacity in attempting to sell this political maneuver. It comes across as rather insulting to the American people, in my opinion.

          Willow -- politics are often ugly, and both sides fight hard, and visablly dirty. This is not new, nor do I see an end to this kind of politicking. Many Republicans are very much on board with using the broken border to club Biden over the head.  Some are not.  Again comes down to individualism.

          Both sides have presented their candidates, and I stand behind the Republican nominee. Once again, I'm seeking change in the form of a candidate who stands out from the ordinary. It's evident that we may differ in our visions for the country. I acknowledge that you've arrived at your hopes with good conscience and have invested considerable thought into your beliefs. Rest assured, I've done the same.

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "I'm quite skeptical about the Biden administration's poor timing and audacity in attempting to sell this political maneuver. It comes across as rather insulting to the American people, in my opinion."

            Biden has asked Congress to work on immigration from day one.

            Let's not forget it was Republicans who asked for this. They asked that other funding be tied to immigration reform. As a result they have been negotiating for the past few months.  Folks seem to be forgetting that part

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              "Biden has asked Congress to work on immigration from day one."

              Yes, we have discussed that proposal. I have posted the proposal many times here on HPs . I found it to be an open invitation to migrants to provide them with a true tutorial on what they could have if they walked across our border.
              https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … on-system/
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwLYMPLYbo

              "Senate Republicans think that’s why McConnell floated the idea of possibly delinking Ukraine money and border security during a meeting Wednesday by telling colleagues that it will be a heavy lift to pass a border security package in the middle of a Republican presidential primary. "

              It appears to be a complex situation with Republicans showing a divided stance on aligning the two issues. The party seems fragmented, exemplifying various Republican archetypes on platforms like HPs. The divergence is evident, ranging from those who maintain a reserved stance, occasionally expressing their views, to those who have grown disenchanted with the overall Republican attitudes and distance themselves from the perceived political noise. Lastly, it's time to speak up and be a bit more loud. Very splinter party.

              "House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., didn’t channel his inner, legislative shaman to divine what might be in the Senate bill. But Johnson warned last week that the border package was "dead on arrival." During his maiden floor speech as Speaker, Johnson practically performed karaoke of Adele’s "Rumour Has It" as he blasted what he’s heard about the bill via the Congressional grapevine."

              Dead, not on arrival: Where the bipartisan border deal stands in Congress before anyone has even seen it...

              We need to wait to see this bill... Not really the place of media to us what is in a bill that ink is not dry.

  3. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    You can all rest easy, the whataboutism police are on hand.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I'm a bit unclear on your point. It seems unwise to neglect the historical context of Congress and past administrations in addressing our longstanding immigration issues. Are you suggesting that the responsibility lies solely with the current Congressional body and not with the previous ones? Does this also imply that we should hold the current president solely accountable for the escalating problems we are witnessing? Please elaborate on your perspective. Sometimes, sorting through the complexities is crucial to navigating the challenges we face today. Seems there was lots of mud that sunk us in the muck we find ourselves in today.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image89
        peoplepower73posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Sharlee:  This is from Vox  1/26;

        For years, Republicans have professed fury over a crisis at the US-Mexico border. For months, many in the GOP have insisted they could only support further aid to Ukraine if it was paired with tougher border security measures to address that crisis.

        So President Joe Biden accepted their conditions, giving up Democrats’ longtime demands on immigration and conceding much of what the right wanted — and as recently as Monday, a bipartisan deal seemed near.

        But now, Republicans may be backing out. Not because of the substance of the deal, but because it might hurt Donald Trump’s chances of retaking the White House.

        That’s what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Republican senators in a closed-door meeting, according to Jake Sherman of Punchbowl News, saying “the politics” had put them “in a quandary.”

        “When we started this, the border united us and Ukraine divided us,” McConnell said, per Sherman. But, he went on, “The politics on this have changed.” The issue is that “the nominee” — Trump — wants to campaign on immigration. “We don’t want to do anything to undermine him.”

        Some pro-deal senators pushed back on how these remarks were reported Thursday, claiming McConnell wasn’t affirmatively declaring the talks dead or separating the two issues. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) said instead that McConnell was “ambiguous” about a path forward.

        But it’s clear what McConnell was alluding to: that Trump wants there to be chaos at the border while Biden is president, because he thinks such chaos will help defeat the incumbent. Trump does not want congressional Republicans making a deal with Biden to address the actual substantive problem because that would make Biden look good.

        Romney confirmed that interpretation. “The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump,” he told reporters Thursday. “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 really appalling.”

        If Republicans do kill the deal, it would make all their protestations about how much they supposedly care about this issue look hollow, and the GOP would come off looking tremendously cynical. They claim to believe the migrant surge of the past few years is destroying the country, but they’d be happy to let it continue unaddressed for another year if it means they win an election.

        https://open.substack.com/pub/counterpo … medium=web

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Over the course of several decades, we have observed both political parties leveraging immigration as a strategic tool. It is not unexpected, given that presidents have wielded full Congressional authority for many years to shape or modify immigration laws in response to the nation's needs. Regrettably, some individuals choose to overlook this historical context, opting instead to exploit the pressing immigration crisis for political gain during campaigns. I find it challenging to ignore these established facts, and it seems unfair to solely attribute the issue to one political party, especially considering our shared history in grappling with this complex problem.

          As the bill is still undergoing revisions, I hesitate to speculate on President Biden's stance. Media coverage thus far suggests a belief that he holds the power to set daily caps on migrant entries, potentially reaching up to 1.5 million annually, a solution that appears dubious from a logical standpoint. The media has disseminated information about the bill that cannot be substantiated.

          The current political maneuvers appear to be a belated attempt to sway public opinion. Such tactics undermine my intelligence and are genuinely offensive. The statement suggesting that Republicans may withdraw support not due to the merits of the deal but to protect Donald Trump's political aspirations is met with a wry smile. It is only reasonable for them to leverage President Biden's perceived shortcomings as part of their campaign strategy to reclaim the White House.

          Turning to the situation in Ukraine, it is evident that a segment of the American population is growing averse to further financial support for the war effort. While I may not share this sentiment, I acknowledge its existence. Trump's decision to exploit this sentiment to criticize Biden does not come as a surprise; it is a political maneuver aligning with his campaigning style. In light of these developments, it is clear that the Republican party has undergone significant fragmentation, with factions willing to engage in contentious tactics for political advantage.

          I find myself pondering why some individuals seem inclined to overlook Biden's ineffective approach to border problem-solving. I attribute this all of a sudden urgency solely to a political strategy.   What strikes me as peculiar is the apparent influence of the media in shaping perspectives and directing them toward a specific narrative. Well, everyone is entitled to their views.

  4. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 3 months ago

    Please, riddle me this batman. If immigration laws as they stand are sufficient to meet our needs at the border then why would you need executive action? MAGA says there are no changes that need to be made to the current immigration law yet they complain about the "invasion" 

    Do you change the existing laws to meet the need or do you just let any current president slap on any Band-Aid that they are able to constitutionally get through?

    Is it common sense to keep patching  a lacking law or actually address the law itself?    Seems that MAGA is advancing the idea of that whatever sort of very limited executive order a president can do is fine. It is preferable to changing the actual immigration policy.

    Why is executive action preferable to changes in actual policy with new law and legislation?

    Executive action has to be in the framework of the law.  Surely folks understand that a president can't go above the law?  Please, anyone,  make your case that executive action is preferable over legislation  that reforms current policy?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      It's obvious executive actions must operate within the confines of the law. First and foremost It's essential to recognize that a president cannot exceed the boundaries set by the law.   Advocates of executive action should consider the limitations and complexities involved. In my view, making the case for legislative reforms allows for a more comprehensive and enduring solution, involving a broader consensus and avoiding potential legal challenges that could and would arise.  Relying solely on executive action lacks the depth and stability that legislation can provide in shaping and reforming current long-lasting policies.

      Personally, I harbor a genuine lack of trust in the current president. Given this sentiment, I find it challenging to feel at ease with his thoughts or actions. At this point, I would rather place my trust in the legislative branch to address the needed changes in the flawed immigration system and work toward resolving the ongoing crisis.

  5. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 3 months ago

    Senator James Lankford defended the bipartisan border security bill on Monday, saying that if it was in place already, it could have resulted in one million fewer illegal immigrants in the country right now.

    "Not only would the border would be shut down today it would have been shut every single day the last four months," Lankford said while on Fox News' Fox & Friends. "If this would have been in place four months ago, we would have had a million fewer illegal immigrants into our country right now"..... WHAT?!

    Mike Johnson says...

    "The bill is even worse than we expected"
    LOL Mike..

    Lankford explained the contents of the bill saying, "the key thing here is [it] changes the asylum laws, builds more wall, adds more detention beds, adds more deportation flights, changes the 10-year backlog that we're currently in now to weeks before people are actually deported."

    Trump's statement...

    "Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

    Really?!

    "Radical left Democrat" says..

    Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) denounced the Senate’s bipartisan border security and foreign policy agreement on Sunday, claiming that the deal is nothing more than "a retread of Trump administration policy."   

    This is almost laughable.  I'm hoping we  have enough reasonable, clear minded adults in Congress who can do what's right for the country.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Is the border automatically closed to all "immigrants", legal and illegal, when over a specific number has entered in a specific time frame, or is simply left as "overwhelmed" or some other vague language and left to the President to close?

      Are there specific numbers allowed in in a year and all others turned away?  Does it allow for more highly skilled laborers after that number?

    2. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      You should also hope to see the text dissected so folks can know what's really in the bill rather than taking any politician's word for what the text says.

      There are some questions that the text might answer:

      The pros say it gives authority to close the border (with conditions), how will that be done? Will it only be illegal access points or include official border points too?

      No more catch & release, a 15-day hearing window, and full detention (or, government supervision??) during that time, how will that be done? Surely the failed examples of the Obama and Trump years explosion of detention center expansion cast some doubt that permanent detention facilities (with a rotating population) are a possible quick-term solution.

      The "immediate work permit" claims sound like a very bad idea, what does the text describe as immediate?

      Those are just from the media blurbs of supporters and opponents, what's the text say?

      From what the media and pols have presented, it sounds like a bad bill.

      GA

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I heard that it becomes something that will occur only if the amount of migrants crossing the border surpasses 5,000 migrants in the day. 

        And then, it is not required to be shut, only that the information be relayed up the chain of command to those who can give the order to close the border.



        The process will be changed to give them identity and ability to work, at the border, so that as soon as they cross, they have access to government benefits and are put into a government run workforce tracking system.




        Essentially, they will have full rights to work as soon as they cross.

        This is what the Globalists, aka WEF, aka UN, wants... the International Corporations want a global workforce, not a national one.  They want to be able to move the labor, reduce costs, benefits, to wherever they see fit, however they see fit.

        As I warned for the last couple of years, if you do not understand the Compact on Migration, UN Agenda 2030, and the goals and agendas of the WEF... then you do not know what your government, the American government, the Establishment, is moving the country toward... the Biden Administration is fully committed to these agendas and goals, as are most in DC, on either side of the aisle... opponents to it have been weeded out, denigrated or destroyed.

        EDIT/ADD:

        This bit is entertaining and informative regarding this (and other) matters:

        Watch Bill Maher’s Face When He Realizes Patrick Bet-David Cornered Him with Logic
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwOyDug7q-g

        1. Willowarbor profile image61
          Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          "I heard that it becomes something that will occur only if the amount of migrants crossing the border surpasses 5,000 migrants in the day."

          This is incorrect. It is encounters not crossings.

      2. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        "From what the media and pols have presented, it sounds like a bad bill."

        Specifically what portions? I'll assume that your statement is based upon having read the bill and not just media reports.  I've  read the bill and my previous post was more to point out the spin from all factions.

        1. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          You assume I have read the bill. You even quote the conditioner of my statement that says I didn't. And you still assume I have read the bill.

          Well, your message vehicle ("I'll assume . . . ") adds some color to the message that struck me as polite snark. Bless your heart, you know what assumptions can do.

          Nope, haven't read it. Didn't know it was released before today (or maybe Sunday night?), and this morning the opponents say it's 370 pages and they're supposed to read it (staff, of course), understand it, and vote on it this week. That's a lot of reading you did. Must have taken a few hours at least (a very fast reader?).

          That felt a bit like old times. I almost got carried away.

          To your question about specifics . . .

          I did catch a few real(?) details from a Senator Sinema interview on Saturday/Sunday(?). In talking about ending 'catch & release, she said it's gone. The asylum seekers will now be held for a maximum 15-day detention, or, be under government supervision for that time.

          What does the text say about that part? The 'catch & release' policy was resorted to because the available detention facilities were full, where will they be held? What does "under government supervision" mean? How will the folks who have been judging initial claims speed up the process?

          In past look-abouts, from articles and interviews involving the folks who did the initial screening (as I recollect), the job went like this:

          The seeker has no ID, comes from a small town/village that is not the records source larger cities are and a simple query can take days or weeks to be answered. Follow-ups with relatives and potential sponsors (this step is before NGO access) usually take even longer. The majority of seekers (illegal crossers) aren't known to anyone but their families.

          How does the bill change this months-long effort (the 9-10-year hearing wait is another thing) so that it can be done in 15 days?

          My thoughts are obvious simply by the questions asked. They aren't intended to be snarky, instead, the questions are almost rhetorical. It's tough to trust what's being claimed and it's certain that both sides' responses are spun to some degree.

          So what are the unspun details in the text of the bill concerning this detention/review part?

          GA

  6. Sharlee01 profile image89
    Sharlee01posted 3 months ago

    The recently approved $118 billion U.S. Senate deal aimed at addressing the migrant backlog at the southern border raises questions about the allocation of taxpayer funds specifically for immigration issues. Various explanations have been offered, and my research has yielded indications that only a minimal portion will directly target immigration problems, with a significant share earmarked for foreign aid. The inclusion of foreign aid in the border bill sparks concern, as it appears to be an additional maneuver to allocate resources to areas unrelated to the immediate challenges faced at the border. This raises apprehensions about responsible fiscal management, especially when there are concerns about spending on non-essential endeavors at a time when financial prudence is crucial.

    This appears to be another -- hey sucker look here not there!   I do realize has become the status quo --- but come on.  I want a clean immigration bill. Congress can work on separating aid expenditures from the need to handle the crisis at our border.

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I have a suggesting for an immigration bill - immigration should be strictly curtailed as to permit only the most qualified person in terms of skillset to American shores.  Also there should be vetting regarding criminal backgrounds & strict psychological vetting regarding immigration.   In my assessment, immigration to this country should be reduced 60%-there are too many unskilled & otherwise unqualified people coming to America.

      We don't need any unqualified/unskilled people who have no command of language rudiments coming to America, further taxing American social, medical, & educational structures.  We should also deport all current illegal immigrants back to their respective countries of origin.   Instead of immigration which should be reduced 60% or to the barest minimum, let us help Americans recover socioeconomically.   We have FAR TOO MANY immigrants in this country.

  7. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    If someone cared to ask that many question, it's surprising that they wouldn't want to educate themselves about it by reading the bill.

    1. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      And there you go, another assumption. (of course, I am also making one in assuming the post was directed my way)

      GA

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Hey, I saw food for thought.  I hoped to see some back-and-forth discussion on GA's questions. This is still a political chat, got to put forth thoughts to promote conversation.

    3. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Just read the bill they said. It's all in the text they said. Easy peasy.

      Well, not so much. For illustration, consider the offerings of media articles interpreting the text, to explain the text.

      However, considering this thing is written in a combination of legalese, bureaucratic language, and political purpose, relying on more informed voices is almost a requirement.

      The money questions seem clear—as appropriations, but the rest are harder to find without some interpretation.

      The 'Big news' numbers being argued are the closure triggers of 4000 and 5000, the required figure of 1400, and the 15-day processing and detention numbers. What are the reasons for those numbers? How are they going to do the 15-day stuff?

      After a few hours of switching between multiple tabs chasing text references, referrals, linkages to text definitions, and self-citations, the details mentioned weren't found, at least for me.

      The opposition to the bill is almost certainly ideological and
      politically driven, but it is not without substance. Why not 1000 instead of 4000? Why require any minimum numbers?

      Why not force the inflow to match our capabilities rather than those of the inflow? That should be the authority given to the secretary.

      The 15-day thing really requires faith to support because throwing more money at the problem hasn't worked for past presidents and considering the logistics required for assessing the claims there is no explanation for why it will work this time.

      Those first 'uneducated' questions are still unanswered.

      GA

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        It also takes authority away from States, AGs cannot do as Texas is trying to do now, to secure the border.

        I think it does more to ensure that the border stays open and that migrants continue to be allowed in, thousands per day, than it does anything to help alleviate the flow or allow for border control/closure.

        But that's me, I see it from one of those... 'conservative'... aka... reality based viewpoints.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Thank you, Ken. It's evident that the bill not only restricts state-level autonomy but also consolidates authority in the hands of a president who, during their tenure, has overseen the arrival of over 8 million or more migrants.   Despite this, some seem to have been unaware or indifferent to the actions of the Biden administration over the past 3.5 years, during which millions of migrants have entered the country. The attempt to shift blame onto the previous administration is nonsensical... And now the hair is on fire, a great sense of urgency. Is this not somewhat ironic?

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            It would seem that there is not a whole lot of State autonomy written into immigration and border enforcement laws.  The Supreme Court routinely slaps back Texas and others.

            "U.S. Supreme Court says Texas can't block federal agents from the border. The high court's order effectively maintains long-running precedent that the federal government , not individual states ,  has authority to enforce border security.'

            "It is now well settled that the federal government has exclusive power to regulate immigration rooted in national sovereignty and federalism. Under our federal system, the federal government enacts laws that apply to all jurisdictions of the country; thus a uniform immigration law applies to all 50 states."

            The urgency that you speak of, isn't that on the part of the Republicans?  The bipartisan committee was put together at the behest of Republicans.  So I don't understand the urgency comment.


            https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/22 … 0security.

            1. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              In MAGA's alternate reality, states have the authority to enforce the nation's border, despite the repeated rulings by the Supreme Court.

              1. gmwilliams profile image83
                gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                States SHOULD have the authority to enforce borders.   If the states WON'T/DON'T/CAN'T enforce borders, then it should be FEDERAL LAW to enforce the nation's borders.   Also there should be stringent immigrant laws admitting only those immigrants w/high skillset, work ethic, no criminal record, etc.  No illegals SHOULD be admitted to this country.   No ASYLUM seekers either.  Only a small percentage of immigrants w/clean records & high skillsets should be admitted.

                1. Valeant profile image86
                  Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Maybe they should, but they don't.  As for your requirements for immigration laws, they do make sense to add value to the country.  They are not unreasonable.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image83
                    gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    I am going to say IT- in the 1920s, America had immigration quotas i.e. people who were deemed to add positively to America society were admitted while those deemed negative to American society either had their numbers drastically reduced or better yet, were prohibited from being admitted to the United States.  We should return to that law- America would be better off.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              "The urgency that you speak of, isn't that on the part of the Republicans?  The bipartisan committee was put together at the behest of Republicans.  So I don't understand the urgency comment."

              As I've mentioned repeatedly, there have been and likely still are Republicans open to negotiation. It's worth considering them as distinct individuals. However, the border deal has faltered due to the lack of support from the GOP majority, indicating their dissatisfaction with its contents. From my perspective, it seems the GOP majority's lack of satisfaction with the bill is what ultimately led to its demise. If there had been majority GOP support, the bill likely would have been approved.

  8. tsmog profile image85
    tsmogposted 3 months ago

    The link next is the bill text.

    https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/i … l_text.pdf

    At page page 90 you will find Division C - Border Act. There is table of contents beginning on that page.

    At page 115 you will find: Subtitle B—Asylum Processing at the Border

    At page 205 you will find: TITLE III—SECURING AMERICA Subtitle A—Border Emergency Authority

    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
      Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      You are right. Not even voting on this bipartisan boarder bill is the last straw. Vote Blue.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I perused it, thanks for the link.

      In your estimation what difference do you see there being what is stated here, starting on page 205, that is of substantive difference from what is already on the books?

      I recognize little positive difference, the President has the power and authority to close the border now if he wanted, and that could last for (I believe) 6 months before he would have to justify a reason to extend that time.

      So this is what I see this bill does...

      It requires the government to process at least 1,400 migrants per day at border crossings.

      It limits the number of days the emergency powers can be used each year, to close the border.

      What it does, in essence, is ensure the border cannot be closed by the President for any significant duration...a protection perhaps, to ensure if Trump gets elected he cannot shut the border?

      And it requires a minimum amount of migrants be processed each day.  In other words, guaranteeing a permanently open border.

      Totally unrelated to the border it adds:

      $60bn in additional aid for Ukraine. $20bn of this is to replenish US stockpiles of equipment transferred to Ukraine and another $14bn is to allow Kyiv to buy more munitions from US suppliers.

      $14bn to Israel. Around $5bn of this funding is allocated to missile defence systems.

      $2bn for operations around the Red Sea to combat attacks on shipping by Houthi rebels in Yemen.

      $2.5bn to deter China. $2bn of which would be to replace US munitions provided to Taiwan.

      1. Valeant profile image86
        Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Permanently closing our border would drastically hurt some businesses, so putting something in there to prevent that is not a bad idea.  And one of the options of processing a migrant is deportation.  Processing means hearing the case, and that could mean clearing the backlog of cases.  Shutting the border down does not mean to stop hearing already filed cases, and the bill makes that clear with the section that is apparently misunderstood.

  9. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 3 months ago

    Politico does a good job at breaking down the 370 page bill...

    Detention.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement would get almost $8 billion in emergency funding, rivaling the agency’s regular annual budget of about $9 billion. The emergency funding would include more than $3 billion for increased detention capacity.

    Asylum
    The plan would set a goal of speeding up the review of asylum claims, striving to let no cases last more than six months — often by allowing asylum officers to close out a claim rather than going through immigration courts. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would get nearly $4 billion to help shoulder that new workload, including for hiring more than 4,300 asylum officers.

    The measure would require asylum seekers to show greater proof to seek refuge in the U.S. and would ensure they are allowed a lawyer if they are facing rapid deportation. All unaccompanied children under 14 years old would also be granted lawyers during removal proceedings, covered by an infusion of $350 million for the Department of Health and Human Services.  (ACLU is already saying they'll sue)


    Local support
    $1.4 billion would be disbursed to help states and local governments handle the influx of immigrants.

    Border wall
    The bill would force the Biden administration to use money already laid out for border barriers on the kind of steel fencing that Trump boasted during his tenure. That “bollard”-style border wall is supposed to be 18 to 30 feet high, with “anti-dig” and “anti-climb” features.

    Visas
    The deal would free up 250,000 new visas over half a decade for people seeking to work in the U.S. or to join family members. It would offer work authorization to the children and spouses of people who have H-1B visas for specialized jobs that often require a bachelor’s degree, like tech and engineering work.

    Countering fentanyl
    Folded into the border security deal is legislation aimed at beefing up anti-money laundering policies and sanctions, known as the Fend Off Fentanyl Act.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration would receive more than $23 million to disrupt and disband Mexican cartels trafficking fentanyl across the southern border. And the State Department and USAID would see about $25 million for programs aimed at curbing the flow of the drug into the U.S.

    Documented Dreamers
    Get zip and there is  also no new citizenship path for farm workers or other long-time residents who work in essential jobs.

    Work permits
    Immigrants who apply for asylum could be eligible to work in the U.S. while they wait.

    Border Patrol
    Customs and Border Protection would get nearly $7 billion in emergency funding, a massive infusion above its current yearly budget of about $21 billion. That extra funding would include $723 million would cover increased hiring of Border Patrol agents and overtime pay.

    Border shutdown
    DHS could close the border if Border Patrol encountered 4,000 or more migrants on average over seven days. The border would have to be shut down if those encounters reached a seven-day average of 5,000 or if they exceeded 8,500 in a single day. 

    Let's remember,Under current U.S. asylum law, any foreign national present on U.S. soil is afforded the right to claim asylum, in principle dispelling any claim that the federal government can currently limit asylum.   Biden has no ability to change this thru executive action. 

    So what is it exactly that MAGA objects to?  Looks like they are the dog that caught the car yet again. 

    Republicans demanded that an immigration bill be linked aid for Israel and Ukraine...but now Johnson says we need a stand alone bill??! Why?

    What's in the MAGA bill since they are so very very concerned with border issues? Isn't it time to stop complaining and start doing? 

    Trump has floated several measures, tell me how their preferable.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/0 … l-00139558

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      It's all very simple.  Trump wants Biden to look bad for the election, therefore, he tells his Trumpets to not approve the bill.

      1. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        They want Trump's plan. Mass deportations, ideological screenings, Muslim ban, family separation, the end of asylum, wait in Mexico and a total border shut down.  Absolutely nothing feasible.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          oops!  You left out alligator moats.

          https://news.yahoo.com/trump-plan-allig … 9871.html?

        2. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          In my view,  your viewpoint presents a heavily biased and exaggerated portrayal of the beliefs and desires of Republicans who support Trump's agenda. While some individuals may indeed advocate for certain policies associated with Trump, such as increased border security measures or stricter immigration controls, it is inaccurate and unfair to characterize the entire group as uniformly endorsing extreme measures like mass deportations, ideological screenings, or a complete shutdown of the border.

          it's crucial to recognize that support for Trump's agenda does not equate to endorsement of every policy proposal he has put forward. Many Republicans may agree with aspects of his platform relating to economic policies, deregulation, or national security without necessarily supporting every specific measure he has proposed on immigration.

          Painting Republicans who support Trump as advocating for "absolutely nothing feasible" overlooks the legitimate concerns and priorities that underlie their positions. Issues such as border security, immigration enforcement, and national sovereignty are complex and multifaceted, and reasonable people can have differing opinions on how best to address them.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I think you hit it on the head.   He now is using political ploys as well as the next guy.   Oddly, anyone would consider he would not fight hard to win. He has become much louder, and it is clear people are listening.

  10. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    An opinion from the Atlantic about the current border bill:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … &ei=23

    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
      Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Trump will run on this. So will the rest of the republican field. It will be the last nail in their political coffins.

      When you've been given everything you wanted and still won't vote to pass the legislation so you can run on nothing being done - you've lost your credibility.

      We absolutely need a viable third party in this country to replace the GOP.

      1. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I think MAGA has replaced the Republican party at this point.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I think there's a significant majority of Republicans who stand behind the "Make America Great Again" agenda. They're more focused on addressing domestic issues and improving the state of our country rather than engaging extensively in global affairs.

          1. gmwilliams profile image83
            gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Thank you.

        2. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
          Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Willowarbor: My point exactly. We need a new "loyal opposition". (Loyal to the Constitution and the American people would be nice.)

  11. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 3 months ago

    Just Chip Roy telling the truth..

    Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) took a dig at former President Trump in a House floor speech Tuesday, denying the former president’s claim that any executive could unilaterally close the southern border.

    Trump’s comments in a social media post Tuesday came after House Republicans shut down a bipartisan Senate border security bill, claiming President Biden should instead unilaterally stop all migrants from entering the U.S. using executive orders....

    Roy said..
    "No, we’re not just going to pass the buck and say that, ‘Oh, any president can walk in and secure the border,’” Roy said, referring to Trump’s post. “All a president has to do is declare the border’s closed, and it’s closed. Well, with all due respect, that didn’t happen in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. There were millions of people that came in the United States during those four years.”


    Can a president shut down a border?  Is Johnson's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act correct?

    Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said courts allowed former President Donald Trump to temporarily restrict entry in the U.S. of citizens from mostly Muslim-majority countries. That was not the case when it came to unlawful border crossings.  Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said courts allowed former President Donald Trump to temporarily restrict entry in the U.S. of citizens from mostly Muslim-majority countries.  That was not the case when it came to unlawful border crossings. 
    Trump also tried to use that authority at the southwest border but was blocked by the courts. 

    In 2018, Trump tried to block people from seeking asylum if they crossed the southern border illegally, but the courts stopped him, citing a provision of the law that affords anyone on U.S. soil,  no matter how they got there,   the right to seek asylum.

    “A president doesn't have the unilateral authority to shut down the border. If a president did, the prior president would have done it,” said Alberto Benitez, director of the Immigration Clinic at George Washington University Law School. “Even the prior president, who had a particular perspective on immigration, never shut down the border. There needs to be buy-in from Congress that a border shutdown is necessary, which there never has been.”

    Republicans have said Biden could reinstate Trump’s "Remain in Mexico" policy  but Mexico’s government has since vowed to reject any restart of the program.


    So where are the solutions folks??

    https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south- … -shutdown-




    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4452 … mp-border/

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      The solution is vote this corrupt, incompetent, Open Border Biden Administration out of office.

      That is how you solve the Border Problem.

      You get rid of the cancer that is in control of the country today.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Agree...

      2. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        That does nothing to change the actual laws.  Whoever comes into the White House next year, will have to deal with the very same laws.  I assume we will continue to have they divided congress with narrow margins.  I'm not sure when people will finally realize that compromise is crucial.

        The asylum laws as written, are the biggest issue in illegal immigration but a president cannot change asylum laws.

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          *This*

          The solution proposed earlier to just vote out Biden actually worsens the issue because then the Democrats in the Senate dig in and have no reason to compromise.  Then Trump will try his executive actions, and then courts will overturn his actions, and then we're still where we are today.

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            It would appear that many on the right believe that if Trump regains office he can swoop in and magically change everything with the wave of his executive action pen.  The problem is, there isn't any executive action that can fix what's going on.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            2024 Senate could flip.  Predicting what is to come seems harder to do, in my view. This political climate is like none I have ever seen. One could consider this bill could be tweaked to satisfy all.
            https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/01/politics … index.html

            1. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              When will you realize that it takes 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate?  You keep making the statement that simply flipping (the GOP getting 51 seats) will give them the ability to pass immigration law.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                If we see 10 flips (most likely unlikely) never sure the Dems can depend on independents to always pull them out.
                 
                Presently
                Republican Party    49
                Democratic Party    48
                Independent    3

                1. gmwilliams profile image83
                  gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  The Independents SHOULD vote Republican in 2024 for the sake of America.  With the state America is in, there IS NO TIME to vote Independent.  I am a Democrat & have voted Republican since 2016.

                  1. Valeant profile image86
                    Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Meaning, you joined the MAGA cult and think it's all doom and gloom if a MAGA politician isn't in charge.  That's not something to brag about.

        2. gmwilliams profile image83
          gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Come on, those laws can be changed.  They weren't written in stone.

          1. Valeant profile image86
            Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            It feels like stone when you have the entire Democratic Party willing to cave on immigration and the GOP won't accept it.

          2. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            All legislative power in our  government is vested in Congress, meaning that it is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws.

        3. Ken Burgess profile image76
          Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          And yet, Trump found a way to solve the problem last time, despite the Senate and Courts blocking his every effort to control the border.

          He went to the Mexican government and cut a deal with them, so that they closed their southern border.  And that was working very well, until Biden undid those efforts... and now we have 3 million a year crossing our border, and growing in number each month.

          Nothing the bill proposed addresses this, it just gives them more money for the wars they want to finance.... or it allows them to point the blame on Trump/Republicans for the supposed "border bill" not getting passed.

          At this stage, you have to be ignorant to buy into this BS, no reasonable person believes the stories the Biden Administration is peddling or that the MSM is putting out.

          No rational person thinks that Biden opened the borders wide open and for three years said there was no problem, and now suddenly is trying to fix it, and its Trump's fault.

          You have to be a sycophant for the extreme-left or totally brainwashed by the MSM messaging if you do believe it.  In either case, there is no hope for such people.  They are the reason why the country is heading toward the abyss that the rest of us are trying to avoid.

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "And yet, Trump found a way to solve the problem last time, despite the Senate and Courts blocking his every effort to control the border."

            That "way" was called COVID.  The pandemic led to sharp drops in immigration to the United States, to levels not seen in decades. 

            https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/pa … 20percent.

            Trump was also able to take advantage of title 42 which would currently not be available.  As far as courts "blocking' Trump, I suppose that goes to the unconstitutionality of what he was trying to do. 

            His MPP program?  Mexico says no thanks. 

            "Regarding the possible implementation of this policy,” Mexico’s opposition statement read, “the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Government of Mexico, expresses its rejection of the U.S. government’s intention to return individuals processed under the program to Mexico.”. So that's a no-go unless we maybe bully them somehow??

            As far as open borders, can you specify what action Biden took, single-handedly, to open borders?

            https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigr … co-program

            1. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Trump - Stopping Illegal Immigration and Securing the Border

              https://www.dhs.gov/stopping-illegal-im … ing-border

              Executive Orders & Presidential Proclamations
              December 31, 2020: Proclamation on Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Continue to Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 29, 2020: Proclamation on Amendment to Proclamation 10052 | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 22, 2020: Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 22, 2020: Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak | WhiteHouse.gov
              November 9, 2018: Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 20, 2018: Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation | WhiteHouse.gov
              Fact Sheets & Press Releases
              2020
              January 5, 2021: Statement From Acting Secretary Wolf on The Completion of 450 Miles of Border New Wall System
              2020
              December 7, 2020: Department of Homeland Security Announce Supplemental Guidance for MPP Implementation
              December 7, 2020: Update: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
              October 30, 2020: UPDATE: New Border Wall Reaches 400 Miles | WhiteHouse.gov
              October 29, 2020: The Border Wall System Is Deployed, Effective, And Disrupting Criminals And Smugglers
              October 16, 2020: DHS, ICE Announce Arrests of More than 170 At-Large Aliens in Sanctuary Jurisdictions
              October 7, 2020: DHS Announces ICE Enforcement Actions On Criminal Aliens Released Due To California Sanctuary Policies
              October 6, 2020: The Trump Administration Is Taking Action to Tighten Foreign Worker Visa Requirements and Protect American Workers | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 22, 2020: President Donald J. Trump Is Honoring His Commitment to Protect American Workers by Temporarily Pausing Immigration | WhiteHouse.gov
              February 24, 2020: DHS Implements Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule
              January 29, 2020: DHS Expands MPP To Brazilian Nationals
              January 23, 2020: Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Birth Tourism Visa Regulation Rule Change | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 22, 2020: Statement from Homeland Security Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf on Migrant Caravan
              January 15, 2020: Statement by the Press Secretary on the Injunction Prohibiting Responsible Refugee Resettlement | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 10, 2020: Arizona Officials Join Acting Secretary Wolf to Mark Completion of 100 Miles of New Border Wall System, Highlight Progress Addressing Border Crisis
              January 2, 2020: DHS Begins MPP Returns at Nogales Port of Entry in Arizona
              2019
              December 19, 2019: Arizona Mayor Withdraws Local State of Emergency Thanks to Trump Administration’s Successful Efforts to Confront Border Crisis
              December 17, 2019: U.S. and Panama Sign a Letter of Intent to Increase Security Cooperation
              October 28, 2019: DHS Expands MPP Operations to Eagle Pass
              October 28, 2019: U.S. and El Salvador Sign Arrangements on Security & Information Sharing; Give Salvadorans with TPS More Time
              October 17, 2019: Trump Administration Announces Resumption of Foreign Aid for Central American Countries to Address Illegal Migration
              October 16, 2019: DHS Partners with City of Houston and Others to Combat Human Trafficking
              September 25, 2019: Joint Statement Between the U.S. Government and the Government of Honduras
              September 23, 2019: Acting Secretary McAleenan Announces End to Widespread Catch and Release
              September 21, 2019: Joint Statement Between the U.S. Government and the Government of Honduras
              September 20, 2019: Joint Statement Between the U.S. Government and the Government of El Salvador
              September 19, 2019: Remarks by President Trump During Visit to the Border Wall | San Diego, CA
              September 10, 2019: Readout of Vice President Mike Pence’s Meeting with the Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard
              September 10, 2019: Border Numbers Fall for Third Month in a Row, But Remain High
              August 28, 2019: Acting Secretary McAleenan Signs Letter of Intent with Government of El Salvador
              August 27, 2019: DHS to Reprogram and Transfer $271 Million to Support Humanitarian and Security Emergency Response
              August 27, 2019: Joint Statement Between the U.S. Government and the Government of Honduras
              August 21, 2019: President Donald J. Trump is Taking Action to Close the Loopholes That Fuel the Humanitarian Crisis On Our Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              August 21, 2019: DHS and HHS Announce New Rule to Implement the Flores Settlement Agreement; Final Rule Published to Fulfill Obligations under Flores Settlement Agreement
              August 8, 2019: DHS Acting Secretary McAleenan Announces July Migration Statistics Showing Consistent Decline from Record Levels in May
              August 5, 2019: Acting Secretary McAleenan Met with Officials in Guatemala City to Further Implement DHS Initiatives
              July 26, 2019: DHS Hosted 8th Northern Triangle Ministerial Meeting
              July 25, 2019: Statement from the Press Secretary | WhiteHouse.gov
              July 24, 2019: Statement from the Press Secretary | WhiteHouse.gov
              July 22, 2019: Joint Statement between the U.S. Government and the Government of Guatemala
              July 15, 2019: DHS and DOJ Issue Third-Country Asylum Rule
              July 12, 2019: Remarks by Vice President Pence in a Press Conference | McAllen, TX | WhiteHouse.gov
              July 12, 2019: Opening Remarks by Vice President Pence at Roundtable Discussion with U.S. Border Patrol and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee | McAllen, TX | WhiteHouse.gov
              July 9, 2019: DHS Announces Decrease in Border Enforcement Actions and Continued Efforts to Address the Ongoing Border Crisis
              June 27, 2019: Acting Secretary McAleenan Statement on the Senate Passing Emergency Border Funding
              June 27, 2019: Statement from the Press Secretary | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 22, 2019: First Ladies of Guatemala and Honduras Tour Border with DHS and CBP Leaders
              June 21, 2019: Texas Governor Deploys 1,000 National Guard Soldiers to Assist with Border Crisis
              June 12, 2019: DHS and HHS Pen Joint Letter to Congress: Emergency Supplemental Funding Urgently Needed to Address Crisis at Our Border
              May 31, 2019: Acting Secretary McAleenan Signs Bilateral Agreement to Confront Factors Driving Irregular Migration from Guatemala, Combat Human Smuggling
              May 30, 2019: Border Patrol Agents Apprehend Largest Group Ever Encountered
              May 30, 2019: Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on the Crisis at Our Southern Border
              May 30, 2019: Statement from the President Regarding Emergency Measures to Address the Border Crisis | WhiteHouse.gov
              May 23, 2019: President Donald J. Trump Is Taking Action to Protect Our Social Safety Net and Promote Self-Sufficiency for Non-Citizens | WhiteHouse.gov
              May 23, 2019: Memorandum on Enforcing the Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors of Aliens | WhiteHouse.gov
              May 21, 2019: President Trump’s Bold Immigration Plan for the 21st Century | WhiteHouse.gov
              May 16, 2019: Remarks by President Trump on Modernizing Our Immigration System for a Stronger America | WhiteHouse.gov
              May 16, 2019: President Donald J. Trump Wants to Fully Secure Our Border and Reform Our Immigration System to Put America First | WhiteHouse.gov
              May 15, 2019: DHS Issues Waiver to Expedite Border Wall Projects in California
              May 15, 2019: DHS Issues Waivers to Expedite Border Wall Projects in Tucson and El Centro
              May 8, 2019: Proclamation on Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States | WhiteHouse.gov
              May 1, 2019: Remarks by Vice President Pence in Meeting with ICE Baltimore Field Office Leadership | WhiteHouse.gov
              May 1, 2019: President Donald J. Trump Is Calling on Congress to Provide More Resources to Respond to the Humanitarian Crisis at the Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 29, 2019: President Donald J. Trump Is Working to Stop the Abuse of Our Asylum System and Address the Root Causes of the Border Crisis | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 29, 2019: Presidential Memorandum on Additional Measures to Enhance Border Security and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration System | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 26, 2019: DHS Issues Waiver to Expedite Border Wall Projects in Yuma & El Paso
              April 26, 2019: DHS Issues Waiver to Expedite Replacing Existing Border Wall in Arizona
              April 22, 2019: President Donald J. Trump is Taking Action to Reduce Visa Overstays and Uphold the Rule of Law | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 22, 2019: Presidential Memorandum on Combating High Nonimmigrant Overstay Rates | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 19, 2019: Readout from Acting Secretary McAleenan’s Trip to McAllen
              April 19, 2019: Congress Must Act to End the Crisis on Our Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 16, 2019: Acting Secretary McAleenan: Nonpartisan Committee Report Recommendations Essential to Securing Our Border, Safety and Welfare of Migrant Children
              April 9, 2019: Statement Regarding Migrant Protection Protocols Litigation | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 7, 2019: Secretary Nielsen, President Trump Assess Humanitarian and Security Emergency Response in Calexico, CA
              April 5, 2019: Remarks by Vice President Pence at a Briefing From Homeland Security Investigation and ICE Agents | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 5, 2019: Remarks by Vice President Pence to Homeland Security Investigation and ICE Agents | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 5, 2019: An Overwhelming Surge in Illegal Immigration is Worsening the Crisis at the Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 5, 2019: Remarks by President Trump in Roundtable on Immigration and Border Security, Calexico, California | WhiteHouse.gov
              April 3, 2019: Secretary Nielsen to Travel to Southern Border to Oversee Responses to Humanitarian and Security Emergency
              April 2, 2019: Secretary Nielsen Convenes Border Crisis Meeting, Taps Manuel Padilla to Coordinate Interagency Border Emergency Cell
              April 1, 2019: Secretary Nielsen Orders CBP to Surge More Personnel to Southern Border, Increase Number of Aliens Returned to Mexico
              March 29, 2019: Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen Statement on Border Emergency
              March 28, 2019: Secretary Nielsen Signs Historic Regional Compact with Central America to Stem Irregular Migration at the Source, Confront U.S. Border Crisis
              March 26, 2019: Secretary Nielsen Meets with Mexican Officials on Border Emergency, Travels to Honduras to Meet with Northern Triangle Governments to Address Crisis at Source
              March 21, 2019: Remarks by Vice President Pence to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Employees | WhiteHouse.gov
              March 21, 2019: Readout from Secretary Nielsen’s Trip to Texas
              March 15, 2019: Remarks by President Trump on the National Security and Humanitarian Crisis on our Southern Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              March 15, 2019: Veto Message to the House of Representatives for H.J. Res. 46 | WhiteHouse.gov
              March 15, 2019: President Donald J. Trump Stands by His Declaration of a National Emergency on Our Southern Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              March 7, 2019: Top 5 Border Falsehoods Pushed by Congressional Democrats and the Media | WhiteHouse.gov
              March 6, 2019: Humanitarian and Security Crisis at Southern Border Reaches 'Breaking Point'
              February 22, 2019: Joint Statement Outlines Clear Path Toward Historic Northern Triangle Compact | En español
              February 21, 2019: Secretary Nielsen Announces Historic Steps with Northern Triangle Security Ministers to Confront Irregular Migration, Caravans
              February 15, 2019: Secretary Nielsen Statement on FY19 Homeland Security Funding Bill and National Emergency Declaration
              February 15, 2019: President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security Victory | WhiteHouse.gov
              February 15, 2019: Remarks by President Trump on the National Security and Humanitarian Crisis on our Southern Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              February 8, 2019: DHS Issues Waiver to Expedite Secondary Fence Replacement Project in San Diego
              February 7, 2019: Presidential Proclamation on Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States | WhiteHouse.gov
              February 5, 2019: Secretary Nielsen Statement on the State of the Union
              February 5, 2019: Secretary Nielsen Statement on New Migrant 'Caravan'
              February 5, 2019: President Donald J. Trump Is Committed to Working with Congress to Solve Our Urgent Immigration Crisis | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 24, 2019: Migrant Protection Protocols
              January 23, 2019: Remarks by President Trump in Meeting with Conservative Leaders on His Immigration Proposal | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 19, 2019: President Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Reopen the Government and Fund Border Security | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 12, 2019: Remarks by President Trump During Roundtable Discussion with State, Local, and Community Leaders on Border Security and Safe Communities | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 11, 2019: Remarks by Vice President Pence Before Meet-and-Greet with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Employees | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 11, 2019: Remarks by President Trump During Briefing at the Rio Grande Valley U.S.-Mexico Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 11, 2019: Remarks by President Trump in Roundtable on Border Security | McAllen, TX | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 10, 2019: The Crisis at the Southern Border Is Too Urgent to Ignore | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 10, 2019: Secretary Nielsen: “We Face a Humanitarian and Security Crisis” | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 9, 2019: Remarks by Vice President Pence After Meeting with Congressional Leadership on Border Security | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 8, 2019: President Donald J. Trump Calls on Congress to Secure our Borders and Protect the American People | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 8, 2019: President Donald J. Trump’s Address to the Nation on the Crisis at the Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 8, 2019: Congress Must Do More to Address The Border Crisis | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 7, 2019: MYTH/FACT: Known and Suspected Terrorists/Special Interest Aliens
              January 4, 2019: Remarks by President Trump After Meeting with Congressional Leadership on Border Security | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 4, 2019: President Trump Sends a Letter on Border Security to Congress | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 3, 2019: Remarks by President Trump on Border Security | WhiteHouse.gov
              January 1, 2019: CBP Issues Statement on Illegal Border Crossings in San Diego Sector
              2018
              December 31, 2018: CBP Commissioner: Continued Humanitarian Crisis - Increase in Medical Emergencies on the Southern Border
              December 20, 2018: Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announces Historic Action to Confront Illegal Immigration
              December 19, 2018: Statement from the Press Secretary | WhiteHouse.gov
              December 12, 2018: Walls Work
              November 25, 2018: Secretary Nielsen Statement On San Ysidro Port Of Entry Closure
              November 20, 2018: Statement from the Press Secretary | WhiteHouse.gov
              November 9, 2018: President Donald J. Trump Is Upholding the Rule of Law and Ensuring Consequences for Those Who Illegally Cross Our Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              November 1, 2018: Myth vs. Fact: Caravan
              November 1, 2018: Remarks by President Trump on the Illegal Immigration Crisis and Border Security | WhiteHouse.gov
              November 1: 2018: Our Nation’s Weak Asylum Laws are Encouraging an Overwhelming Increase In Illegal Immigration | WhiteHouse.gov
              November 1: 2018: Confronting the Urgent Crisis at Our Border | WhiteHouse.gov
              October 31, 2018: DOD Units Supporting DHS Along Southwest Border | Department of Defense
              October 23, 2018: Democrat-Backed Catch and Release Loopholes Create a Border Crisis | WhiteHouse.gov
              October 23, 2018: By The Numbers: Understanding The Border Crisis Being Driven By Congressional Democrat Backed Loopholes | WhiteHouse.gov
              October 13, 2018: Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure | WhiteHouse.gov
              August 20, 2018: The Life Saving Missions of CBP
              August 20, 2018: The Life Saving Missions of ICE
              August 20, 2018: Remarks by President at the Salute to the Heroes of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection | WhiteHouse.gov
              August 20, 2018: Remarks by Vice President Pence at the Salute to the Heroes of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection | WhiteHouse.gov
              August 20, 2018: President Donald J. Trump Stands with the Brave Heroes Who Enforce Our Immigration Laws and Secure Our Borders | WhiteHouse.gov
              July 19, 2018: The Perils of Illegal Border Crossing
              July 12, 2018: Trump Administration Completes Reunification for Eligible Children Under Age 5
              July 10, 2018: The Administration is Following the Court Order to Reunify Families in a Responsible Manner
              July 5, 2018: Abolishing ICE Would Erase America’s Borders And Open The Floodgates To More Crime, Drugs, And Terrorism | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 27, 2018: President Donald J. Trump’s Travel Restrictions Defend Our Country | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 23, 2018: Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
              June 22, 2018: Remarks by President Trump and Members of the Angel Families on Immigration | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 22, 2018: President Donald J. Trump Stands with the Victims of Illegal Alien Crime | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 20, 2018: President Donald J. Trump is Acting to Enforce the Law, While Keeping Families Together | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 19, 2018: The Crisis At The Border By The Numbers | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 18, 2018: DHS Secretary Nielsen's Remarks on the Illegal Immigration Crisis
              June 18, 2018: Myth vs. Fact: DHS Zero-Tolerance Policy
              June 15, 2018: Fact Sheet: Zero Tolerance Immigration Prosecutions - Families
              June 15, 2018: Frequently Asked Questions: Zero Tolerance Immigration Prosecutions
              June 15, 2018: Information Provided to Families While in CBP's Custody
              April 9, 2018: What You Need To Know About President Donald J. Trump’s Efforts To End Catch And Release | WhiteHouse.gov
              June 2, 2018: What You Need to Know About Catch and Release | WhiteHouse.gov
              February 15, 2018: Unaccompanied Alien Children and Family Units Are Flooding the Border Because of Catch and Release Loopholes
              February 15, 2018: We Need to End Unchecked Chain Migration and Eliminate the Reckless Visa Lottery to Secure the Nation and Protect the American Worker
              February 15, 2018: We Must Secure The Border And Build The Wall To Make America Safe Again
              February 15, 2018: To Make America Safe Again, We Must End Sanctuary Cities and Remove Criminal Aliens

              1. Valeant profile image86
                Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                A total of 977,509 people were apprehended or deemed inadmissible in fiscal year 2019, compared to just 521,090 who were stopped at the border in fiscal year 2018.  The problem has been escalating even when the US changes policies, as is proven by the increases in numbers from 2018 to 2019.  Is a nearly doubled amount considered 'fixed it?'  Let us know.

                And the change in counting encounters instead of apprehensions that started in 2020 during Covid means comparing Biden's counts to others is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.  Something no one from MAGA ever discusses.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  https://hubstatic.com/16909125_f1024.jpg



                  https://hubstatic.com/16909128_f1024.jpg

                  1. Valeant profile image86
                    Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Thanks for spamming the forums with the same stupid graph that does not take into account how Central American economies have been crushed post-covid, and why people see how our asylum laws allow them to enter our country legally.  Maybe post it again tomorrow and continue to deny Covid's affects on the immigration issue.

                  2. gmwilliams profile image83
                    gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    The others in yellow are coming from Central American countries such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, & El Salvador.  There are some, coming from South America.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Thank you for presenting this comprehensive information. So very relevant, and complete.

              3. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
                Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Ken: All that in four years, and yet nothing got accomplished. Now, why do you think that was?

                1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                  Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Quite a bit got accomplished actually, despite Congress, UN and NGO efforts against those efforts.

                  All that was done away with almost entirely on day 1 of the Biden Administration as he rescinded or terminated all of Trump's efforts.

                  When considering the bill... they said when more than 5,000 a day cross the border, that they account for of course, they can act to shut it down.

                  But... how do you shut a border when there are no walls and there are not nearly enough agents to cover or stop them?

                  Chinese migrants are fastest growing group crossing into U.S. from Mexico | 60 Minutes
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7TNP2OTY2g

                  That 60 minute clip shows one break in the border where some 3,000 migrants cross every day.  One spot.  3,000 migrants.

                  The reality of that bill is that there was nothing in it that was going to help stop or deter the migrants.  Fact.

                  The reality is that the UN, along with major political donors, along with many NGOs are working to INCREASE migration into America. 

                  The Biden Administration, along with plenty of politicians in Congress, are in full support of those efforts... anything they say to the otherwise is just political lies... lies for the 2024 election.

                  You know, I was in Guantanamo back in 96 dealing with the migrant crisis we had at that time.   There was this time, when a large group of them decided they wanted to go back to Cuba, they were tired of being held up in what was essentially a large cage with no where to go, nothing to do, in a situation worse than most jails offer in America.

                  So they broke out, made a dash for Cuba, having been told prior to this effort, that a large minefield separated Guantanamo from Cuba itself.  They risked it anyway, there were many explosions heard not long after they got out of eyesight.  None turned back.

                  That bill offered no real solutions... that bill to me looked a lot like a political ploy, made it seem like they were giving something to
                  Republicans, and then eviscerate them in the MSM for not passing it... or they pass it, really get little out of it to deter migrants... but Biden gets his funding to continue his wars a while longer.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Biden - Open Border Policy

              Since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, his administration has acted on a number of fronts to reverse Trump-era restrictions on immigration to the United States.
              https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … d-changes/

              Biden’s Open Borders Immigration Policy — Why?
              March 2021
              https://www.aei.org/op-eds/bidens-open- … olicy-why/

              Biden Open Border Policies Led to Historic Encounters of Unaccompanied Alien Children
              April 2023
              https://oversight.house.gov/release/gro … %EF%BF%BC/

              Biden's Open Border Policies Will Pour Gasoline on Fentanyl Crisis
              https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/ … nyl-crisis

              Congressman Good Introduces the Close Biden's Open Border Act
              This commonsense solution responds to the previously revealed efforts by the U.N. to effectively increase the flow of migrants by “teaching” them how to seek asylum and avoid deportation.
              https://good.house.gov/media/press-rele … rder-act-0

              1. Willowarbor profile image61
                Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                I see all the sources repeating these phrases "open border policies" "open border agenda". Yet no laws pertaining to immigration have changed between Trump's time in office and Biden.

                People don't understand that it is the asylum laws as written that are the problem.

                Flaws in our asylum system allow illegal aliens with meritless claims to cross our borders and remain here for years.  Only Congress has the power to make these changes.

                Biden did actually try but...

                A federal judge in California last year  struck down the his administration’s restrictions on migrants seeking asylum, ruling that the government’s plan to reduce illegal crossings on the southern border violated federal law. 

                Looking back to the past,  approximately one in 10 illegal aliens arrived at our southern border in 2018  claiming a credible fear of return, up from one out of every 100 prior to 2013.
                Since 2010, these claims spiked by 1,700 percent.  You tell me what the issue is and who has the power to solve it??

                These are old numbers but we see this trajectory started long ago.
                Immigration courts received approximately 160,000 asylum requests in FY 2018, compared to only 42,000 in FY 2008.   In 2023? More than 800,000 applications.  Seeking asylum is legal.  The system is obviously overwhelmed but the remedy is only found in legislative change.

                This fact sheet from 2018 shows the growing issue.

                "Our Nation’s Weak Asylum Laws are Encouraging an Overwhelming Increase In Illegal Immigration"

                Any appreciable difference at the border will only result from reform of asylum laws. Plain and simple.

                Let me remind everyone that federal law,  states that anyone on U.S. soil may request asylum, no matter how they arrived. 

                https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/br … migration/

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                    peoplepower73posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Here is the reason we have asylum laws.

                    The origin of the asylum laws on the southern border can be traced back to the Refugee Act of 1980, which incorporated the international definition of a refugee and the right to seek asylum into U.S. immigration law. The act was passed in response to the humanitarian crises caused by the atrocities of World War II and the Cold War, and it aimed to create a uniform and fair system for admitting refugees and asylum seekers.

                    However, over the years, the asylum system has faced many challenges and changes, such as the influx of migrants from Central America in the 1980s and 1990s, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the recent surge of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border.

                    Different administrations have adopted different policies and practices to deal with these situations, such as expedited removal, credible fear screening, detention, family separation, and the Migrant Protection Protocols.

                    The Biden administration has pledged to restore asylum access and reform the system, but it has also faced criticism and opposition from some lawmakers and advocates.

                    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … rcna136602

            3. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              "That "way" was called COVID.  The pandemic led to sharp drops in immigration to the United States, to levels not seen in decades."

              Perhaps you might consider Trump's full four years...  I like charts, just truly give a clearer ongoing picture of what Trump accomplished at the border.

              "February 29, 2020
              CDC and the Washington Department of Public Health report the first death in an individual with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.S. The patient was a male in his 50s who was hospitalized with a pneumonia of unknown cause and later died of his illness."  https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/cov … 20illness.

              . One must also remember after the first reported death in March 2020 --   "Title 42 is the name of an emergency health authority. It was a holdover from President Donald Trump's administration and began in March 2020. The authority allowed U.S. officials to turn away migrants who came to the U.S.-Mexico border on the grounds of preventing the spread of COVID-19."  https://apnews.com/article/immigration- … OVID%2D19.

              I believe Trump's efficient problem-solving during the pandemic was largely due to his efforts to reduce the influx of migrants into our country. Witnessing his ability to tackle issues amid a highly infectious pandemic was reassuring. Additionally, I found his performance prior to the pandemic commendable. Overall, his achievements, in my opinion, are noteworthy.

              https://hubstatic.com/16909121_f1024.jpg

          2. gmwilliams profile image83
            gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Exactly Ken.  You & Sharlee are the voices of mature reason.  I am Liberal & I see America descending into lower purgatory & into upper hell (yes, I am reading Dante's Divine Comedy, one of my favorite books).

            1. tsmog profile image85
              tsmogposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              So, you're very familiar with the eighth circle (Bolgia 5 & 6) of hell.

              1. gmwilliams profile image83
                gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                OH YES.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              I am hopeful for our country's future as I observe a resurgence of sanity on social media platforms. This reaffirms my belief that while some Americans may be deceived temporarily, the majority eventually awaken to the truth.

              1. gmwilliams profile image83
                gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                I sincerely hope so.  My cousin who voted for Biden is crying now regarding the migrant crisis.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I have a wide circle of friends and family, each expressing a range of emotions – from embarrassment over their support for Biden, to anger at themselves for what they perceive as foolishness, and even straightforward acknowledgments of being wrong with a plea to be left alone about it.

                  The woke are waking up --- Yes !

      3. gmwilliams profile image83
        gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, this is understood but how many Americans who are so enamored of Biden will vote against him?   I know I didn't vote for Hillary nor Biden.  My VERY LAST democratic vote was for Obumbler.   I refuse to vote Democrat again, seeing the abyss that the Democrats have created.   I have voted Republican since 2016.

  12. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 3 months ago

    Comments from Lankford yesterday were alarming..

    "Lankford acknowledged that some senators would vote no because of policy differences, which he said were understandable. But he seemed to take issue with those who had "political differences'' with the bill. He revealed that a "popular commentator" who hadn't seen the bill pledged to "destroy" him if he tried to move forward with it during an election year.

    This is outrageous.  Sickening really, I'm betting it was Hannity.  Lankford should out the person.

    This whole border debacle and hypocrisy has convinced me that we need to vote out MAGA and the Republican sympathizers.  They've devolved to the point that they are completely ineffective, disingenuous and under the thumb of a man whose only goal is self preservation.

    Yesterday they killed a border bill that literally had nothing for Democrats. A bill, so conservative in which the likes we will never see again.  A bill Republicans demanded be tied to foreign aid. 

    Just when you thought you've seen outrageous levels of hypocrisy, the Republican Party tops itself yet again.

    Right after killing the vote, Republicans creep out to the cameras to say they will kill aid packages today because we need to work on the border first!  Are you freaking kidding me?!  Groundhog day? Do they think no one's paying attention?  They really do think we're stupid..

    "Republicans appeared to be stuck in an endless loop, continuing to demand border changes — only hours after voting to tank the aid package that contained them. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, was demanding the chance to add back border provisions. (WTH?!) Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina told Fox News he would oppose the stand-alone foreign aid bill because “we should first secure our southern border.”.   

    If this makes sense to any of you please elaborate.

    McConnell said. “Why would voters look at what goes on over here — the circus — and say, ‘Yeah. We want more of this?'”

    You got it right Mitch.

    And Sinema...

    "After all those trips to the desert, after all those press conferences, it turns out this crisis isn’t much of a crisis after all,” Sinema deadpanned. “Sunday morning, it’s a real crisis. Monday morning, the crisis magically disappeared.”

    Well, now that the "invasion" and "crisis" at the border is over ...what's next?   
    Republicans have lost any ability to credibly talk border... Or actually just about anything else.   Cue the motion to vacate the speaker LOL

    1. IslandBites profile image88
      IslandBitesposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Yup. I was about to post the video (Lankford's speech). Worth watching.

      https://youtu.be/jbmZakY_JfQ?si=piPgSAmn2QihMS3l

      If anyone still had doubts, yesterday should be enough. What a circus!

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      It is clear the Republican party was, and remains split on the bill...

      Chip Roy's views could offer another perspective from within the Republican Party. It's crucial to acknowledge the division within the party regarding the bill.  I note you seem to dwell on one man's views regarding the bill...

      "Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) took aim at bipartisan Senate negotiators for the border security deal revealed over the weekend that he says he will oppose.

      Roy criticized the proposed deal on CNN’s “The Source with Kaitlan Collins” on Monday for establishing a threshold of 5,000 average daily migrant encounters at the border before requiring it be shut down. Collins pushed back on this criticism and suggested that if this measure was in place today, the border would already be shut down.

      “If you set a standard of about 5,000, the cartels will go ah, I get it. 4,999? You got it,” Roy said.

      Roy and Collins continued to argue over whether the border would be shut down if the proposed legislation were in place now.

      “What I’m telling you is … the cartels would adapt. They would adapt,” Roy said. “There would be 4,999.”

      “I should note. The people who wrote this bill disagree with you. They say it would shut down the border, right now, including Senator Sinema, who, as you know, is from Arizona,” Collins responded.

      “And they don’t — they don’t know what they’re talking about over there,” Roy said.

      According to the proposed deal, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to close the border to all migrants without appointments to seek asylum if the average number of daily crossings reaches 5,000. This would also apply if the number of crossings exceeds 8,500 on a single day.

      The proposal would also give the department the power to close the border to all migrants who don’t have appointments when average daily migrant encounters reach 4,000.

      Negotiations, led by Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), have been ongoing for months as the senators worked to reach a deal that would provide new provisions on the border as well as funding for Israel and Ukraine.

      Roy suggested that one of his issues with the proposal was Ukraine funding being tied to the border security provisions, which Senate Republicans demanded last year.

      “And first of all, the reality is the backdrop here is really important. We have Ukraine funding, as a big part of this $118 billion bill, $60 billion for Ukraine, as well as some other foreign aid, none of which is paid for. And then, you slap in $20 billion of border funding, tied to legislation that we find to be problematic,” he told Collins.

      The $118 billion national security supplemental includes $60 billion for Ukraine, $14.1 billion for Israel and aid for Indo-Pacific allies in addition to the bipartisan border agreement.

      The bipartisan deal was quickly met with widespread criticism from conservatives, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and House GOP leadership, who have suggested the bill will go nowhere in the House even if it is passed by the Senate.

      The Hill has reached out to Lankford, Sinema and Murphy for comment."

      https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4450 … ing-about/ 
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVJVqD-6PaE
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g89ghXD-ZY

      I strongly agree that Lankford should have the courage to name names and be transparent. Unfortunately, his failure to do so leaves me questioning the validity of his claims. It seems like a cheap political tactic. I admire politicians who dare to speak up, name individuals, and stand by their accusations.

      1. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Cheap political tactic? I don't back the policy positions of Lankford but I sure do have a bit of empathy for him as he's being thrown under the bus right now. How quick MAGA turns on people. Discrediting them.  They actually chose one of the most conservative members to lead those negotiations. In my view he negotiated fairly and gained  more concessions than would have ever been imagined.  Lol the Democrats conceded DACA and pathways to citizenship in exchange for limits on asylum... Hell will freeze over before you see that happen again.

        In the future, what Republican would ever want to be put in the position of having to negotiate anything when this is what happens to them afterward?  Completely undermined by the whims of one man who only looks to preserve his own self-interest.

        https://x.com/JesseKellyDC/status/17553 … 95270?s=20

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I think it's quite natural that the three representatives tasked with working on the bill were selected to spearhead the negotiations. After all, who better than those intimately familiar with the bill's creation to advocate for its terms and negotiate its details? However, it's clear that a faction within the House wasn't pleased with the final version of the bill. They scrutinized it closely, finding several aspects objectionable, and voiced their dissent through various channels, including the news media. Lankford and Sinema, in particular, expressed their reservations about the bill, exercising their right to share their perspectives.

          I quote you --- "Lankford acknowledged that some senators would vote no because of policy differences, which he said were understandable. But he seemed to take issue with those who had "political differences'' with the bill. He revealed that a "popular commentator" who hadn't seen the bill pledged to "destroy" him if he tried to move forward with it during an election year.

          This is outrageous.  Sickening really, I'm betting it was Hannity.  Lankford should out the person."

          Firstly, it's imperative that Lankford reveals the identity of the individual he's referring to. As an elected official, he owes it to "We the People" to be transparent and truthful. Without this disclosure, my respect for him dwindles; he's levied an accusation without providing any means for us to ascertain its veracity. I've noticed some speculating that the unnamed person might be Hannity, but such conjecture only adds to the confusion and serves no constructive purpose. This tendency to accuse, condemn, and potentially defame someone without evidence is deeply troubling to me.

          Furthermore, it seems apparent to me that it's not a single individual who's throwing Lankford "under the bus," but rather a multitude within the House who disagree with his bill.

          After perusing several of your comments on this subject, I notice that you seem to be fixating on one particular aspect while disregarding the myriad other facets at play. It's akin to selecting just one colorful crayon from the box and overlooking the diverse array of hues available. It's obvious that you are angry, you might want to realize many Americans are angry over the many millions of migrants that this administration saw fit to let come into America.

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "Americans are angry over the many millions of migrants that this administration saw fit to let come into America."

            The tanked legislation sought  to make it harder for people to claim asylum and expedite that process for those who actually qualify; expand federal detention capacity; and provide funding for other border investments, including hiring asylum officers and border security agents, among other things. It did NOT say that 5,000 immigrants are allowed to illegally enter per day.

            The  bill used that number to help determine when a new emergency authority could  take effect to more easily expel migrants, regardless of whether they intend to seek asylum. 

            "We already have more than 5,000 illegal crossings happening,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior adviser for immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, wrote in an email. “We aren’t ‘allowing it’; it is happening, and we then have to deal with it.”

            Under current law, migrants who cross the border illegally are ALLOWED to seek asylum,  there is NO CAP..setting off a lengthy process in which they await a decision.

            If we do not address our actual asylum laws, what changes? The bill addresses asylum law. 

            Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican who helped draft the bill, has also pushed back on claims it greenlit the illegal entry of 5,000 migrants a day.

            “This authority is a 5,000 authority to say if you get to 5,000 — which we have been there every single day except for seven in the last four months — that it completely closes the border down, it deports everyone,” he said on Monday on Fox News.

            Yep sounds like a Democrats dream. SMH

          2. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "he's levied an accusation without providing any means for us to ascertain its veracity."

            The link in my previous comment identifies the individual.

    3. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Wow, someone must have 'peed in your cheerios this morning', I haven't seen you post such a biased declaration before.

      Here's another perspective. Your condemnations of the political maneuvering and individual political fawning and posturing are as bad and obvious as you say. The hypocrisy—in that arena, is as damning as you say. But, your claims about the bill itself, and a 'conservative's view' of it are way off.

      I don't see much that is a "win" for [C]onservatives. Enacting a law that allows 28,000 illegal crossings a week isn't a conservative goal. Neither is a law that requires processing 1400 crossings.

      In general, regarding the 'win' of the billions of dollars attached to the other issues, one conservative view of the bill is that instead of bringing the border under control, it forces us to accommodate the onslaught instead of stemming it.  The claims that it is the best immigration bill ever and a Conservatives' win seems very arguable to me.

      GA

      1. Valeant profile image86
        Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        'Enacting a law that allows 28,000 illegal crossings a week isn't a conservative goal.'  Those 28,000 illegal crossings are happening with or without a bill right now.  And the President, according to many, does not have the power to unilaterally stop asylum claims which is in our laws.  You see, the last president who tried to do things in violation of our laws is now standing trial in four different trials across the country.  So, Biden asking Congress to change the law and give him the power to legally close the border is the right process for enacting some kind of change. 

        And of those 28,000 crossings you mentioned, the ones who currently have a legal right to claim asylum, the bill says that within 15 days, we could deport them if their asylum claims are bunk, as opposed to the years it takes now.

        Yeah, that does sound like a win for all Americans.

        1. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          It looks like "a win" needs some definition.

          I think it's fair to say that giving the president (through his Secretary) the power to close the border is a win, as is reducing the numbers from 200+ thousand to 28 thousand. But, 28 thousand is still a crisis-level number. Only a political rationalization would see a lesser crisis level as a win. It's a great effort, but it's not a win. A win would put border operations under our control, not the inflow's. Is there an explanation for the chosen numbers?

          The 15-day thing is the most indefensible when the past presidential efforts are considered. This is a physical reality issue.

          Without chasing Google links or arguing specific facts, look at the past efforts, starting with Pres. Obama. He started with 100+ thousand a month (2001, and ok, I did chase that number to be sure of the comparison) and although the word "crisis" wasn't used, I bet we all remember the images of Obama's 'kids in cages' and the aerial views of the massive tent camps erected. Those aren't dings on Pres. Obama, they are the reality of the situation. Even with his efforts and billions of dollars spent, the administration still had to use 'catch & release-type programs.

          The 'winning' numbers of this bill take us back from numbers two, or almost three times higher, to managing a level of numbers that history shows was unmanageable. That's not a win that's a tourniquet.

          To the processing point, it seems unreal to think throwing more bodies at it would help. This is another physical reality issue. These folks, who don't have official IDs are coming from places that rarely have records databases that can be tapped with just an electronic query. At best, they can find out that there is no information about them. It couldn't be done with 2001's numbers and the increased staffing that has taken place since then. It would probably be a notable starting point to find the years and numbers when applicant processing wasn't months long.

          It's an improvement that normalizes previously unacceptable numbers as an acceptable baseline. That's not a win.

          Most of those thoughts could be influenced by a better understanding of why those numbers were chosen. It might make a difference.

          GA

          1. Valeant profile image86
            Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Using the tourniquet reference, people start with a tourniquet in a crisis until a better option is available.  Doing nothing would lead to a certain death.  I'm with the tourniquet people for now, you're with the nothing people.

            1. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Story of my life . . . deplorables and 'nothing' people.

              GA

      2. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I don't see much that is a "win" for [C]onservatives. Enacting a law that allows 28,000 illegal crossings a week isn't a conservative goal. Neither is a law that requires processing 1400 crossings.

        The bill compels the Homeland Security secretary to use an emergency authority to bar people from requesting asylum if officials record 5,000 ENCOUNTERS a day over seven consecutive days. But that’s not the same as accepting 5,000 people into the U.S. daily.

        It lets the executive branch quickly stop people from coming in through U.S. borders and prevent them from applying for asylum under certain conditions.

        Currently there is no mechanism to bar anyone from applying for a asylum.

        The bill focuses on encounters, not crossings.  Encounters track the number of times immigration officials stop people trying to enter the U.S., not the number of people who are released into the country.

        There is this idea that we control how many migrants attempt illegal crossings. We do not, we control what happens once we encounter someone who has already crossed the border illegally.  The bill changes this.

        The current bill restricts access to asylum, we have nothing like that currently. 
        Almost 500,000 applications for asylum were made in 2023. This is preferable? 

        "In December 2023, the latest month with available data, there were 302,034 encounters at the southern border. The daily average of 9,743 encounters would have triggered the emergency authority."

        This is current law..
        8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum
        U.S. Code

        Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

        And yes, I don't think I have ever been so outraged at a political party.


        https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2 … -us-daily/

        1. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I should have copied you in my response to Valeant. It's the same answer.

          As a note, it's not necessary to quote laws to me, I'm typically familiar with what I'm talking about, even if that understanding differs from another's interpretation. (it's almost hurtful that you think quoting is needed ;-) )

          GA

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Well said.

            This is the truth of the matter.  The Open Border supporters (aka Biden Administration) are trying to make the unacceptable appear acceptable, while at the same time scoring points against Republicans for not accepting it... their propaganda (aka MSM)  trying to make it appear the Republicans were given everything they asked for, and still denied it.

            It is interesting to see the effort the MSM puts into spinning this, it shows how dead "news" is in America, all we have left is approved propaganda that supports the corporate and elite interests, while shaming Americans every chance they get for trying to look out for their own interests and for thinking that this is their country.

            1. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              On this issue, I'm trying to keep political accusations out of my responses because they aren't necessary to the points being discussed. It's enough to discuss the details of the concept without any political attachments.

              I'm sure as hell not criticizing the bill because Trump doesn't like it and I'm not criticizing it simply because the Democrats are praising it.

              The issue seems simple, why choose a known unmanageable number when a lesser more manageable number should have been picked?

              That doesn't mean I disagree with your thoughts, they're just another conversation than this one.

              GA

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                You are fabulous at doing that, GA, it is certainly a strength of yours, being able to parse and single out the topic from the greater whole and focus on it.

                In this, it is difficult to separate it from the political goals and ideals of those who push the Open Borders Open Society, Global Compact on Migration, efforts.

                This bill was never going to give Republicans (aka Conservatives) what they were seeking.  That was never what the Biden Administration, or those who are on board with a borderless world want.

                In this case, it is important to recognize the Biden Administration knowingly funds the NGOs and UN programs that help educate the migrants on how to get to America's Southern Border, often funds those efforts, instructs them on what to say when they get here, ensures they have phones, funding, etc. when they arrive.

                Its kind of the same mentality that allows them to give hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine, allows them to supply Ukraine with hundreds of billions of dollars to run their economy and launder money back, and then says we are not at war with Russia... we are just supporting Ukraine.

                The Biden Administration isn't funding the efforts of Migrants to get here, it is giving our tax dollars, to NGOs and the UN so that they can do it.

                And then, it is having a bill drafted that states we will alert someone, allowing them the possibility of closing the border, when it gets past 5,000 migrants a day, for so many days in a row... depending on how they are counted, not including those that are exempt from that count, etc.

                It is typical Biden Administration BS...

                1. gmwilliams profile image83
                  gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  +10000000000

      3. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Exactly, 100% correct.

        The only people who could possibly think that was a 'conservative' bill, that gave anything that Republicans wanted are the extreme-left... the fully indoctrinated, the fully plugged into the MSM propaganda.

        Anyone else, from Independent, middle of the road Americans, to the Right, see through that. I would hope.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          And the beat goes on.  As Trump said, "I would rather have no bill than a bad bill." Therefore, all of this is happening and will continue to happening on Trump's and MAGA's  watch.  He loves this because it makes Biden look bad, until Trump gets elected. Let's all celebrate the "open borders." What a low life piece of sh*t.

          https://youtube.com/shorts/HP-omvVH1Pc? … v0BTeMB9jY

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            It is happening and will continue happening because it was a bad bill and the Biden Administration has wanted and will continue to operate an Open Border (he promised it).

            The Biden Administration funds the NGOs and the UN programs that aid and pay the migrants to come here.  I have provided links to articles that show this.  Truth matters, to some people.

            WATCH: Biden says migrants shouldn't be detained just for crossing border | 2019 Democratic Debates
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Yh4OyQ2xw

            Candidate Biden Calls On Illegal Immigrants to Surge the Border
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwLYMPLYbo

            Biden: I'll give pathway to citizenship to 11 million undocumented immigrants | PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbzEuEr7Fio

            Etc. Etc.  supports Global Compact on Migration, Agenda 2030, etc.

            1. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
              Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              " it was a bad bill "

              "Republicans who said they would not aid U.S. allies before addressing the influx of migrants at the U.S. border promptly slammed the very deal they had demanded hours after it was released"  Washington Post

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                You quote the WP as if its anything more than biased opinion.

                Clearly, if you review the bill, it does not address the 'influx of migrants' to the degree any Republican should be happy with.

                1. Willowarbor profile image61
                  Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  How do you suggest that the "influx" be addressed? What sort of provision, would you suggest, that would actually pass?

                  I mean this bill lost a handful of Democrat votes.

                2. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
                  Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  "You quote the WP as if its anything more than biased opinion."

                  . . . in your opinion. This newspaper has the Pulitzer's to prove their reputation for accuracy and objectivity.

                  1. Valeant profile image86
                    Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    And the bill has the backing of 18,000 border patrol agents.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image76
                    Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    That's similar to a Movie winning an Oscar, it is more a sign that you are producing the preferred content, not necessarily a sign that you are above reproach or for that matter, really the best.

                    2020: The Washington Post Staff, Explanatory Reporting for a groundbreaking series that showed with scientific clarity the dire effects of extreme temperatures on the planet.

                    2022: The Washington Post Staff, Public Service for its coverage of the causes, costs and aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack, showing how the forces behind the siege are shaking the underpinnings of democracy.

                    2023: Caroline Kitchener, National Reporting for post-Roe abortion coverage

                    2023: “His Name Is George Floyd” by Robert Samuels and Toluse Olorunnipa, General Nonfiction.

                    Today a Pulitzer is more of a 'For being progressive and supporting the politically correct hot topic issues of the time' award, I would argue the accuracy and objectivity part of that went away quite some time ago.

                    As for the Border:

                    Since the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the nation-state (defined as - a formal political entity occupying a set territory) has been the fundamental building-block in the international system.

                    Describing the Westphalian peace, Henry Kissinger observed that “each state was assigned the attribute of sovereign power over its territory. Each would acknowledge the domestic structures and religious vocations of its fellow states as realities and refrain from challenging their existence.”

                    Sovereignty is also fundamental to maintaining a balance of power in the international system, and thus, stability and order.

                    Because no global sovereign exists, states compete with one another to enjoy the benefits of security, freedom, and prosperity.

                    As Henry Kissinger observed, a balance of power system is based on the principle “that each state, in pursuing its own selfish interests, would…contribute to the safety and progress of all the others.”

                    The erosion of the principle of sovereignty has negative implications for alliances. If the United States does not prioritize the security of its own borders, it will be hard to convince Americans to defend the sovereignty of other nations.

                    Adversaries and rivals recognize the importance of borders. That is why Russia and Belarus have weaponized Ukraine migrants to undermine the European Union.

                    For example, since December 2020, the Belarusian government has pressured neighboring states by pushing migrants to the borders of Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, which led those states to reinforce their borders.

                    Former German Chancellor Merkel referred to these actions as a “hybrid attack.”

                    Prior to the Ukraine conflict, continuing to today, Turkey has extorted billions of dollars from the European Union with the threat of flooding Europe with migrants and refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War.

                    Italy, has constantly faced migrant issues, since the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya.  One could say, if America had not destabilized Libya, Syria, and Ukraine with its actions, there would not be a migrant crisis for the EU.

                    Control over borders, and the power of sovereignty that such control represents, has always served as a central element of state power.

                    And a central element of a state’s power, as well as perceptions of its power, have always been tied to a state’s ability to control and defend its territorial integrity.

            2. peoplepower73 profile image89
              peoplepower73posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Ken: So how does any of that make a difference, if nothing is done to correct  what you are saying Biden did?  Sometimes to do nothing is to do everything.  And that is the case with Trump and his MAGA people. What blows my mind is how can Trump the civilian have so much influence over our congress that he can veto bills before he even knows what is in them? What is wrong with this picture?

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                There was very little in that bill that addressed the concerns Republicans have stated needed to be addressed, as far as I, and others who have expressed their opinions on it that I consider sound judges on such matters, can tell.

                Of course, a lot of it is 'legalese' leaving some grey area to determine what "is" is... as one should expect from a bill.

            3. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Man, the lies in these headlines are standard.  The first one, they are talking about people who had already been living here - not those crossing the border.  The second, Biden is talking about those seeking asylum, which is legal to do, which if they applied for asylum and it was granted, would not make them illegal immigrants.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            PeoplePower - I must ask --- What do you think about the millions that have been ushered into America over the past 3.5 years?   Over 8.7 million encounters at our border, and numbers growing monthly.  Why the urgency at this point?

            1. Willowarbor profile image61
              Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Were these numbers dealt with through our current immigration laws?
              Anyone who shows up to the border, regardless of how they got there, can seek asylum.  The bill saw to make some changes to actual asylum law but MAGA wasn't interested... So problem solved I guess. 
              I still don't understand the comment about urgency question mark every administration over the past 30 years has tried to tackle the problem.  This administration asked for immigration reform on day one...

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                I vehemently disagree with your comment. Firstly, the assertion that anyone who arrives at the border, regardless of their mode of arrival, can seek asylum is misleading. United States immigration laws do not grant blanket asylum to all border crossers; rather, individuals must meet specific criteria outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act to qualify for asylum. Furthermore, characterizing the lack of changes to asylum laws as a failure on the part of MAGA (Make America Great Again) supporters is misguided. Immigration policy is a complex issue that requires careful consideration and bipartisan cooperation, and blaming one political group for perceived inaction is counterproductive.

                Additionally, suggesting that the problem of immigration could have been resolved simply because a bill proposed changes to asylum laws is naive and dismissive of the broader challenges at hand. Immigration is a multifaceted issue that extends beyond asylum policies, encompassing border security, visa programs, enforcement measures, and more. To insinuate that the problem is "solved" due to one bill's proposals is shortsighted, in my view.   

                While it's true that various administrations have attempted to tackle the issue, and failed --- my question is clear, it's the stats that put this administration at the forefront. We have witnessed numbers that have caused a true National crisis. A crisis this president has ignored.

                1. Willowarbor profile image61
                  Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  LII U.S. Code Title 8 CHAPTER 12 SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 1158
                  Quick search by citation:
                  Title
                  enter title
                  Section
                  section
                  8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum
                  U.S. Code
                  Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

                  Yes of course there are rules to be granted asylum but then border and immigration officials must deal with all of that.   The bill that was tanked had provisions to limit actual asylum claims
                  Fewer claims, no figuring out if someone qualifies or not. 

                  We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about claims and you are speaking to the granting of asylum... Fewer claims equal less resources to Grant.

                  So yes they will keep showing up because they know they have a right to claim and we will keep processing  them.... Seems like a win?

                  In reality, 20 million could show up at the border and they're all going to be able to claim asylum as long as that law remains unchanged.

                2. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
                  Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  " To insinuate that the problem is "solved" due to one bill's proposals is shortsighted, in my view.   "

                  Don't worry about it. Thanks to republican congressmen, nothing will change.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                    Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    I believe it's improbable that we'll witness any progress on immigration. The issue has become highly politicized, and I doubt if the holdout segment of Republicans would be willing to relinquish their stance on separating foreign aid from the immigration bill. Some want very tough new laws, and to lower expenditure in regards to aid funds.
                    https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 … l-00140557

              2. Valeant profile image86
                Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                8.7 million weren't ushered into America.  Sharlee omits the deportation numbers from failed asylum claims and from Title 42 to list 8.7 as the number, but that is not how many were actually permitted to stay and have their asylum claims heard.

                1. Willowarbor profile image61
                  Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I think the numbers are irrelevant.  10 million could show up and under our current asylum law they are all able to claim asylum.  And then comes the burden of processing. The bill that they tanked would have allowed some tools to reduce the number of claims, increase deportations and shorten the amount of time to process other claims.

                  This could have been framed as a win for congress working in a bipartisan manner but no.  In reality it wouldn't have been an exclusive win for Biden. 
                  They just don't care though. The leader told them to take their ball and go home.

  13. gmwilliams profile image83
    gmwilliamsposted 3 months ago

    In New York, there are a gang of illegals/migrants who are targeting women & snatching their bags in order to get their cellphones so they can hack their bank accounts.  Previously, there were illegals/migrants who beat up two policemen.   Of course, when they were arrested, Alvin Braggs released them.  The Democratic Party has reduced the quality of life in America.  We need more draconian immigration laws a/k/a 1924 when were quotas.  These illegals/migrants shouldn't have been admitted to America in the first place. Many of them have criminal records & they have no skillset in addition to other negativities.

  14. GA Anderson profile image89
    GA Andersonposted 3 months ago

    The "last straw" in this title is a great set-up for this news tidbit. The perfect place to throw a little gas on the fire. Some folks are going to lose their minds.

    Breaking News from AP Wire Service:

    "WASHINGTON NEWS
    The White House is weighing executive actions on the border — with immigration powers used by Trump"


    "WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is considering using provisions of federal immigration law repeatedly tapped by former President Donald Trump to unilaterally enact a sweeping crackdown at the southern border, according to three people familiar with the deliberations." Source: AP News

    GA

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I wonder...

      Do they really believe they can have, essentially, an Open Border policy, where they actually fight AGAINST the States trying to secure their border (IE - Texas) and then think 'solving the problem' for 6 months, just prior to the election, will actually fool any of the voters who consider this their #1 issue?

    2. Willowarbor profile image61
      Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      "it’s unclear how the administration would draft any such executive actions in a way that would survive the inevitable legal challenges."

      For me, this is key.

      Also the question of weather hen executive order will provide anything near the resources and reforms that Trump rejected.  Why keep adding band-aids?

      Republicans have  blocked immigration reform in  2006, 2007, 2013 and 2018, 2022 and 2023.  You have to ask why.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Resources and reforms that Trump rejected?

        Biden day one in office rescinding Trump Border policies
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUSyWduVeMY

        Going on now in NY and all major American cities:

        I Investigated the NYC Migrant Crisis
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ0IUibbHsQ

        Migrant Crisis Swells in NYC as Asylum Seekers Camp Outside
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYjQwmKErtI

        1. gmwilliams profile image83
          gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I live in New York, it is beyond crisis, it is a tsumani.   There is crime escalating because of the migrant crisis.  Something has got to give.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I would like to ask, do you think we should overlook the events of the past 3.5 years when assessing Biden's approach to border security? Frankly, it's baffling that he didn't take these actions earlier. This tactic seems typical of Biden – he generates significant issues and then fails to address them adequately. It's almost comical to believe that he expects us to buy into the notion that he's suddenly eager to fix a problem that he claims Trump created.  Did I miss something he has been the president for how long?  Many Americans, myself included, are shaking our heads and chuckling at this absurdity. It's time someone voiced the truth: he's a joke.

        VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2024

        1. gmwilliams profile image83
          gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I intend to vote logically but will other people do the same.  There are those who are blind to Biden, ignoring all the negative aspects of his administration.   Biden has more than dismantled New York.  The present Democrats are pure leftists who aim is to destroy the fabric of American culture & society.   Even more moderate Liberals are decrying what Biden has done.   Adams is much worse.   New York is now the 10th circle of hell.  There are protests in Brooklyn & Staten Island where there is a significant Republican population.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, it's important to approach voting logically, considering all aspects. However, it's also crucial to recognize that people may have different perspectives and priorities. We do have a segment of our population that accepts his tear-down agenda. Let's become more globalist, and toss out the America we have built. Some just hate Trump and may have little to lose anyway.

            However, It's evident that some individuals may have strong opinions about the current administration, and have had it with all the crazy.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            This will be the case for all those that have been indoctrinated, and those that have not personally been impacted by the extreme changes that have gone on during this Administration's time.

            However, some of them, do wake up, after getting slapped in the face with reality... more than a few got such a wake up call from the reaction to Oct 7, when LGBTQ groups were out protesting in support with pro-Hamas groups.

            Others, like those in a nice quiet Cape Cod town got there wakeup call when their High School was transformed into a shelter for migrants.

            Time will tell if enough Americans wake up to the reality in time.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Weeeeee----   Oh, what a phenomenal president we have! It's just delightful to witness Biden tirelessly tackling the mess left behind by Trump. And with such speed!  Time to sell my swamp land in Florida... Any takers? (being so sarcastic)

      1. gmwilliams profile image83
        gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Exactly, it is sad that there are apologists for Biden.  It is maddening & makes my blood boil.   Can't they see what Biden is doing to America.  It is beyond unbelievable & into utterly demonic.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Hopefully, a vast majority can perceive and experience the detrimental effects... There's nothing quite like firsthand experience of destruction to foster common sense. Let's be honest, like yourself, many are currently grappling with the repercussions of Biden's flawed policies and inadequate leadership skills. I fear it's only going to deteriorate further. That's why we need to get that bunch out of the White House.

  15. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 2 months ago

    "#CHANGETHELAWS Now is the best opportunity ever for Congress to change the ridiculous and obsolete laws on immigration. Get it done, always keeping in mind that we must have strong border security"

    The president urged lawmakers to "immediately pass Border Legislation"

    Sounds like this came out of the mouth of Joe Biden?

    These were tweeted on June 19th, 2018 and April 2 2018  by Donald Trump.  Acknowledging the need for change in immigration law.  I find it informative to look back at what was actually happening during Trump's term.

    What else did he say on that day in 2018?

    "The system has been broken for many years, the immigration system. It's been a really bad, bad system, probably the worst anywhere in the world. We're going to try to see if we can fix it," he said as he arrived at House Speaker Paul Ryan's office.

    Interesting. I thought he alone could fix it? Through those executive orders that were shot down by courts one by one.  He was imploring Congress at every turn to act on immigration yet Biden is wrong for doing so today.

    Executive order?

    "Trump has also maintained he does not have the power to take executive action and has repeatedly put the onus on Congress to fix the problem by creating legal authority he says the administration lacks to detain and properly remove families together as a unit."

    But somehow Biden has gained the authority currently?  Trump saw and acknowledged how limiting executive order is and looked to Congress to make changes to give a president more authority... Sounding a lot like the bipartisan immigration bill of 2024. 

    What happened next?

    The Republican' s in the house crafted two immigration bills. One more moderate than the other but Trump supported both.  Said he would sign whatever they came up with.

    Trump strongly encouraged Republicans support. And then, as expected, They were unable to reconcile differences within their party to move the immigration bill through the U.S. House . A huge fail. 121 to 301.   

    And what did he say in January of 2019 in this press release from the White House...

    "President Trump is calling on Congress to fulfill their duty to the American people and finally take action to secure the border. 
    The President is calling on Congress to stop the political games and come together and address the crisis we are facing.
    Congress has a responsibility to protect the safety and security of the American people and it needs to meet that responsibility by providing the funding needed to secure the border."

    Wow.   Biden should  repeat this word for word today and call out the hypocrisy . What has been the response from MAGA?  Nah you can do it yourself Joe.

    Trump  wanted changes to immigration law in 2018 and could not get it done. He was not even able to get it done when he held both chambers of Congress.  Why should I believe he could do so in 2025?  He wanted Congress to do their job and pass immigration reform.  Why is Biden wrong for doing that currently?

    How is what Biden is advocating for currently any different than what Trump himself said in 2018 and 19?

    https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/br … an-people/


    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-d … d=56001469

    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months agoin reply to this
      1. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        He's given up with finding solutions in legislation. He's moved on to fear mongering about "Biden migrant crime"

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)