Partisan Divide in Media Trust
Average of various sources over the last 20 months:
75% of Democrats trust National MSM news sources
Less than 25% of lean/Republicans have any faith in MSM news.
Roughly 50% of independents say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … publicans/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/ame … d-low.aspx
Beyond partisanship, age has an independent effect on media attitudes. Older Americans are generally more favorable toward the news media than are their younger counterparts. Whereas 40% of Americans aged 65 and older have favorable views of the media, 20% of those under age 30 say the same.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/316574/new … cracy.aspx
Where are young people focusing their attention?
In 2016 there was a youth support for Sanders, he was the young voter's 'people's choice'... there should be little surprise, he ran more as a socialist than a democrat, and our universities were in full swing with the 'woke-mind-virus' back then, as they are now.
While Ramaswamy seemed to capture a percentage of that youth support in 2024, it is nothing compared to what Sanders enjoyed.
https://time.com/6305440/vivek-ramaswam … n-primary/
In a recent blog post, Della Volpe wrote that voters under 30, who have been key to modern Democratic victories, now appear less likely to identify as Democrats, instead aligning as independents.
Worse for Democrats, fewer young voters see politics as a “meaningful way to create change,” which he said has been a key indicator of youth turnout.
“Nearly every sign that made me confident in historic levels of youth participation in 2018, 2020, and 2022 — is now flashing red,” he wrote.
They may not want to support Trump, but the mask has fallen off the Biden Administration for the majority of them, the war in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, and the lack of opportunity, to find a job, to buy a home, is impacting them.
Just 9% of voters under 35 said they “strongly approve” of Biden’s performance. Among those who disapprove, 28% said they “strongly disapprove,” while 16% said they “somewhat disapprove.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … -rcna93110
Older voters, over 65 especially, are typically set in their ways, they vote Party regardless of what is going on, and they are the most likely to trust MSM news.
But younger voters are not swayed by MSM messaging, nor are they loyal to any Party, they are more likely to consider the options available despite any biases taught to them early in life.
Biden cannot capture the youth vote, this is clear, they view him with similar disdain that they felt for Trump 5 years ago during the lock-downs.
The curse of being the incumbent while pushing support for unpopular wars and a flailing economy that hits young people harder than most.
It remains to be seen if Trump is wise enough to martial Ramaswamy, Gabbard and others who have the ability to reach out to the younger voters and energize them in ways the Biden Administration cannot.Fascinating stats regarding the youth vote. As for Ramaswamy and Gabbard, it was reported that Trump has them on his short list along with two or three others.
He may end up choosing someone else who isn’t on anyone’s radar. We’ll see.
These are interesting times, to say the least.Interesting times:
Armed FBI agents storm into Chris Kuehne’s home for being at J6.
Kuehne is a 22-year retired Marine Corps veteran who was deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq.
He helped Capitol police clean up trash. This is the terrorist type the Biden Administration fears.
Meanwhile illegals are beating down Police in NY and getting benefits Veterans cannot receive from this corrupt Administration.
https://twitter.com/KelliKayK/status/17 … 6147105276
The question is NOT that Kuehne was there on Jan 6 or that he partook in entering the Capital Bldg.
The question is, what causes those that served their nation, who swore to defend their nation, to mistrust their nation's leadership and be labeled terrorists?
Why are we told men like Kuehne are the evil terrorists we must fear... yet the migrants entering into our cities, attacking our police, robbing our stores, are allowed out of jail free of bail?
From Trump to father and son Daryl and Daniel Johnson... Americans are the enemies? Migrants are not held accountable for their assaults and robberies?It is highly alarming that the FBI is acting as Biden’s gestapo.
I am also concerned about the current push by Biden to create a false narrative called “Christian Nationalism” as a way to target those who oppose the Globalist/ Marxist ideology of this administration.
For anyone interested, the book “The Gulag Archipelago” by Alekdandr Solzhenitsyn explains how innocent people can be arrested when a regime goes rogue.
As for the migrants, many are men of military age… young and strong. One has to wonder about the implications there…Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?
Wow, great food for thought.
The analysis you provided presents a great multifaceted view of the current media landscape and political dynamics, drawing on various sources and statistics to highlight significant trends and shifts in public opinion, particularly among different demographic groups. The statistics from Pew Research and Gallup polls paint a stark picture of the deep partisan divide in trust towards mainstream media sources. with Democrats exhibiting higher levels of trust in what is being reported, compared to Republicans and independents.
The commentary on youth engagement in politics, particularly in relation to the rise of figures like Bernie Sanders and Vivek Ramaswamy, provided me with valuable insight into evolving political preferences among young voters. The polls give a good indicator that younger voters are increasingly disenchanted with traditional party affiliations and perceive politics as less impactful in effecting change. In addition, the disillusionment with the Biden administration among young voters, coupled with dissatisfaction over issues such as economic opportunities and foreign policy, underscores the challenges facing incumbent politicians in mobilizing youth support.
The comparison drawn between older and younger voters regarding media consumption and political allegiance offers an intriguing perspective on the shifting dynamics of political influence. While older voters tend to adhere more steadfastly to party lines and trust mainstream media sources, younger voters exhibit greater independence in their decision-making, being less swayed by traditional partisan loyalties and mainstream narratives. This divergence in attitudes could lead to a changing landscape where alternative voices and non-traditional political figures may gain traction among younger demographics.
In my view, individuals such as Ramaswamy and Gabbard hold appeal among younger voters. It would be smart for Trump to consider selecting a vice president who could attract support from this demographic.It is hard to believe, but I am part of the older folk now!
Catching some Newsmax now and then, reading many articles shared with me, watching podcasts, YouTube, and listening to talk radio.
I like Gabbard, just don't think she is conservative enough. Ramaswamy is my pick for VP and has been for awhile. A part of the next generation of conservatives. Love it.Trump has said that he will pick a VP who can lead effectively, if needed. So if he is assassinated (God forbid) the most important thing is: Who has the moral courage to lead and withstand every single fake accusation the Democrats will throw at him or her, day in, day out, hour by hour?
So, this decision must be about who has the courage to lead, rather than who can capture the youth vote, in my opinion.
In order to know, we have to take a deep dive into the past of potential candidates. I have heard negative rumblings about Ramaswamy. I think we should look into everything. I also believe that this time around, Trump will take everything into consideration, especially given the cowardice of Pence.I too have heard the rumblings, mostly from Dems and Rinos. Out of everyone on Trump's short list, Ramaswamy checks the most boxes, for me. At least at this moment in time! Not closing any doors on anyone.
AB, I have heard these rumblings from some conservatives, as opposed to Rhinos, or those who imagine they are conservative.
That being said, I have yet to do my due diligence on Ramaswamy.
At this juncture, I cannot say.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ramasw … ident-2004
Vivek made quite a lot of money in pharmaceuticals. (That might be concerning, but not necessarily.)
Although Vivek is young, he hasn’t voted much, (twice) and he said he “forgot” about his libertarian vote.
Food for thought.
The question is: Is he legit, or is he an opportunist who is trying to ride the Trump train?
I have not read his book. Has anyone here read it?
"cowardness of Pence" You hooked me. That was so rich the temptation was too great. I'll lower my head and just leave now.
GA ;-)Perhaps you should, GA, but thank you anyway. I relish the non-compliment.
Truthfully, I would prefer that you say what you mean. I can take it.
Anyhoo, my point to AB is that Pence “checked off all the boxes,” yet Pence proved himself to be a coward. He is as fake as Haley. My question is: Is Vivek any better? Right now, I can’t say.
Not that you care, but Trump is very loyal. This is the area in which he “trips up.”
So, I will certainly take a closer look at his potential VP’s.
Very interesting information. Thanks.
BTW: I'm assuming MSM is main stream media.Yes, MSM is main stream media.
It is important to recognize that what the MSM provides is approved and filtered by the FBI and often direct from other sources such as the White House.
Consider what the Twitter Files exposed, regarding the suppression of doctors providing evidence or opinion, or the Hunter Biden laptop.
And then consider that Twitter is no different than Facebook, Google, or the 5 main MSM news sources.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/the … %EF%BF%BC/
Rep. Mace: “Thank god for Elon Musk for allowing to show us and the world that Twitter was basically a subsidiary of the FBI, censoring real medical voices with real expertise that put real Americans live in danger because they didn’t have that information.”
Rep. Donalds: “Over my right shoulder, we have an email. This is Saturday, October 24th, 5:39 pm, referencing five different Tweets with a Twitter email chain. Under the line it’s, ‘more to review from the Biden team.’ Does anybody have a comment on how much interaction was with the Biden team at Twitter with respect to tweets that they wanted Twitter to review?”
The control of messaging is near absolute. The control of information has only increased since 2016, and the Trump election and Brexit. Those things didn't occur because of the Russians, but because people were sharing information on the internet that was not approved, that was not controlled messaging. For a brief while, information and communication was really "free" as in 'Free Speech' and almost any and all information being available.
It did not take long for them to be able to implement the controls they wanted within Alphabet, Facebook and Twitter... but it was overly apparent that they were doing so, post 2016 election, because of how many people who had gained "fame" that had to be de-platformed and silenced.
The mechanisms were put in place decades ago for this censorship.
https://archive.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_20.24.html
The PRISM program has been in operation since 2008 and allows the
National Security Agency to obtain real-time electronic communications
from Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube,
and Apple.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found in 2011 that the PRISM program accounts for 91% of the Internet communications acquired each year under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. The CIA also uses PRISM data and can search for communications between US persons.
The NSA uses certain legal authority [Patriot Act, FOIA] to collect and control Internet and email metadata.
So this is where we see, with the Twitter Files, how a corrupt and criminal system controls what people are allowed to know and ensures fabricated or false information is accepted as fact or true.
They did not want people to know the truth about what the Hunter Biden laptop showed, the criminal interactions with foreign powers for profit, the selling of Joe Biden's political clout.
They did not want to allow dissenting information regarding the Covid narrative, no matter how well meant, to include the very doctors and bio-engineering experts that had been around mRNA science and technology for decades.
Just like they censor what is allowed regarding the Ukraine war, they don't want you to know that companies under the control of BlackRock have bought up Ukraine's farmland, their business and government controlled assets. They call Ukraine the breadbasket of the world, that breadbasket is no longer under the control of the Ukrainian people.
You are living in a false reality if you believe the MSM is anything more than messaging and propaganda designed to keep information from you as much as to provide information to you.
Pence proved himself to be a coward. Honoring an oath makes you a coward? Not in the America I know.
Kathleen, What “oath” are you referring to? Can you cite this “oath?” I would be interested to know about this oath you speak of. Is it an amendment?
I have personally never referred to an “oath.”
So, if you can enlighten our readers about this specific “oath” that VP’s must follow, and of which I am unaware, I would be much appreciative.I assumed everyone who had an opinion about politics knows about the Oath of Office.
She is referring to the Oath of Office. EVERY member of the Congress and Senate as well as the President of the United States has to take it.
The oath is as follows:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Every officer of the US government takes the same oath, military, civil service, elected officials from president down to dog catcher. "I swear to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." You can Google it.
Yes, of course. Every American knows that oath.
But what does that have to do with Pence?
There are processes in place to contest an election. Pence chose not to do his part. He either got spooked or chickened out on Jan 6. In a way, he avoided his “oath” if you insist upon using that word.
I was referring to laws, not the oath of office. That oath does not apply to my query. Trump broke no law.
https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s- … ction.htmlPence chose not to do his part. He either got spooked or chickened out on Jan 6.
The Electoral Count Act details how Congress' counting is supposed to go, and it specifically limits the vice president to ceremonial duties. He is a presider not a decider.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
Of course Pence was not a decider. That is obvious. He failed to preside. That is the point.In his moment in time, he (Pence) became a world class hand-wringer. Giving Jimmy Carter, a run for his money.
That really is an insult to Jimmy Carter.
Carter is not a sell out, he believes in bettering the world, and he definitely came to power in a different era.
Pence listened to the devil whispering in his ear... 'help make this happen, and they will think you are a hero, they will make you President!'
That was what was so interesting watching him run for President in 2024, you could literally see the frustration on his face, he was easier to read than a book... "this isn't the way it was supposed to go... they are supposed to think I stood up to the Orange Man bad and saved the Republic... why don't they like me?'Carter was also one of the worst presidents who held the office.
Long Gas lines, the Iran hostage situation, out of control inflation to name just a few problems with his administration. He is also an antisemite. If you want to see many Jewish stereotypes, simply read his book.
A man a good image.OK...OK...
I was not really defending Carter, I didn't like him, he used to criticize Americans regularly in his TV announcements, he was a bad President, not as bad for America as the one we have currently, but pretty bad.
Now... can we move on from Carter?
Ken: "Carter is not a sell out, he believes in bettering the world, and he definitely came to power in a different era."
Thank you. He worked his whole life to better the world. No. Not a great president (he followed Nixon - the country wanted a good man) but the best former president we've ever had.Oh my.....the journey of my "Jimmy Carter" mention, is priceless!
"Twitter coordinated extensively with the FBI to to disproportionately target Republican leaders, conservative activists, and certain media outlets"
Might the reason for that be:
"Congress finds the following:
(1) White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States.
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894 … s894is.xmlThat is the goal, label those that would stand against the corruption and overreach of a tyrannical government 'White Supremacist Terrorists'...
They did this to the former President of the United States and to a 20 year Honorably Discharged Veteran, a Doctor, a Fireman, a Police Officer.
I do try and make others realize... to see past the web of lies... those who really mean to do you harm, take away your rights, and have ill will towards you are not the Police, Firemen, Doctors that are standing up and trying to keep this country from being completely stolen from us.
Those people are not the former President of the United States and those few brave souls standing up and telling truths in Congress...
Those doing America and Americans harm are the ones in control today and they earnestly wish they could strip you of all your rights, to property, free speech, and the right to protect yourself from their tyranny.
Today they are trying to strip everything away from Trump, and his family, everything he owns as well as his freedom.
Tomorrow it will be Elon Musk, who also has stood up and rang the alarm bell to those who would hear or see.
After that, it will be the few remaining voices in Congress and DC trying to stand for us.
And then there will be none... it will be your turn.Well stated Ken. I don't know how it can be laid out any clearer, presented any simpler. People get it or they don't!
Well stated. I would add patriotic truckers to the list of brave men and women trying to do their part to uphold our republic.
Amen Savvy! I have more trucker friends on X than any other. Love them, their patriotism, their leadership, their resolve......
Interesting...the bill doesn't mention Republican leaders, conservative activists. I don't see how this applies.
This post is directed at Huppage users, not one person in general.
Christopher Wray's testimony before Congress is highly persuasive as he underscores the pressing threat China poses to our nation. His insights resonate strongly with me, and I now share his concerns. Additionally, Wray's remarks have prompted me to consider the implications of the influx of Chinese nationals crossing our borders. What are your thoughts on this matter?
"How many Chinese are crossing the Mexican border?
Chinese migrants increasingly come to the U.S. via Mexico's ...
A record number of migrants from China are seeking entry into the U.S. via its border with Mexico. U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded more than 30,000 encounters along this route in 11 months ending in November. Feb 1, 2024" Source https://www.marketplace.org/2024/02/01/ … migration/
Christopher Wray is testifying about his assessment of the current and significant threat posed by China. He was very direct with his concerns
Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-MpWmGg5KwThe biggest threat, the real enemy, is not from without, its from those that sold out to them, from within.
Hunter and Joe Biden for a start.
Ken: i wasn't labeling anybody. I was quoting Congress.
Yes, Pence chickened out. He chose not to defy the constitution or his oath.
President Carter was "rather rude' Jeeze. I'd welcome "rather rude" compared to Trump.
He "faked" carrying his own bags, and you heard this from what source? Did he sexually assault anyone and get found guilty of it?
Unbelieveable.What's unbelievable to me is that people actually hang onto E. Jean Carroll's every word. That woman has a few loose screws. I wouldn't want to get on her bad side. Oh crap, I just did! Oh well, at least with me, she would be trying to get blood from a turnip!
AB, I just watched this, and enjoyed it immensely. Ken brought up the youth vote, as a premise, when he introduced this forum. He may have a point.
So for your listening pleasure, and to take your mind off of things we cannot control, here is a worthwhile video featuring your favorite VP pick. It is possible you have already seen it.
Thank you for being real, AB.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UIlEWwip90EI think Ramaswamy is great, articulate, energetic, and has a keen eye for what should be focused on.
Trump really needs both Vivek and Tulsi, only one can be VP, but the other can be SoS, both need to be constantly out there speaking to the people.Thank you Savvy! I had not seen this speech, it's a good one. He is the real deal!
As for me, just trying to aim true & shoot straight.You will like this one as well, I'd imagine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hf52UqiiwU
And I learned something new from watching that...
The Biden Administration is trying to Federalize the State's National Guard so they cannot be deployed to the border or to protect the State's from Federal overreach...
Isn't that wonderful?Wow. "It would be the first time in American history that a President would pay soldiers to stand down, to not protect our country."
Governor Noem is an amazing woman. If only young women would look to women like her, of strong work ethic, sound judgment, uncompromising character...and not those that would have them turn all power and all control over to Government, we would be having different conversations.Yup, the Biden Administration has the Air Marshalls essentially standing down and doing babysitter work for migrants.
The Border Patrol agencies essentially do the same, give migrants rides, help them process for government benefits, there is no deterrence.
There is no protection of our borders or our flights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aaJQeNHFks
Our current state of security is worse than prior to 9/11 she said.
HI Savvy, you (and Ken) were the inspiration behind my latest article!
Just an FYI.Hi AB… Just read this. (I don’t tune in everyday) Thank you! I also took the time to read your article, which I enjoyed. I just want to say, take heart, even Mr. Wonderful himself said in a recent Interview ( see link below) that New York is screwed, that he will never do business there again, that he does not “care” about Trump, but that he knows no crime was committed, that Trump paid everything back with interest, that Letitia James has no idea about property values, that the banks who loaned money to Trump are very sophisticated, and that New York is now a “loser” state and that after this latest ruling, he and all investors he knows will never do business there again.
My point is that all the sh*t that has hit the fan on Trump is coming back to bite New York, big time. As well it should.
For your viewing pleasure when you have a few extra minutes:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4QfQFgJxb … l0eQ%3D%3DNY has been a loser State for a long time now...
But in the last couple of years, Covid, Riots, Trump, they have really gone overboard to commit suicide. NY and CA deserve what they get, they keep voting for this stupidity... let them have it.
Places like Florida, South Dakota Texas want nothing to do with the insanity gripping those states, or our federal government... something is going to give eventually.The future of New York! Sanctuary!?!
https://youtu.be/x7DpMq6hbJY?si=oHC9WtF7H3qZvlLa
https://youtu.be/yy1D3yPTXx4?si=uk9AJ3LqlKEWP0yWIt's Studio 54 days are long gone.
Escape from NY is what many have done, more are following...
Yep. But this latest Trump ruling may have put the final mail in their coffin now that entrepreneurs won’t invest there.
"What's unbelievable to me is that people actually hang onto E. Jean Carroll's every word."
Not hanging onto anything. Stating facts.Unless you were there, it was a he said, she said, situation; there is nothing factual about that.
You are right, but it should have been thrown out for lack of evidence and the several decades between. If it was a JUST court, it would have been!
Hence, why clear-minded Americans recognize it as a Weaponized.
And its not just against him, but against former aids, lawyers, in essence anyone that supported him rather than turning on him in the Administration or in regards to the 2020 election.
Here is a very informative video which makes evident just how bad things are in NY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU4bKah04Ls
Critics of Biden's border policies contend that they have ushered in a range of adverse outcomes for the nation. One major concern is the significant increase in illegal immigration spurred by what is perceived as leniency in immigration enforcement. This surge places strain on border resources, overwhelms processing facilities, and raises alarms about national security. Moreover, the handling of the situation has led to what many describe as a humanitarian crisis, with overcrowded detention facilities and a reliance on catch-and-release practices, placing undue burdens on the nation in supporting undocumented migrants.
Economically, critics argue that the influx of undocumented immigrants places additional strain on already stretched social services, including healthcare, education, and welfare programs. This not only burdens local economies but also taxpayers who bear the brunt of the costs associated with providing services to undocumented individuals, potentially disadvantaging poverty-stricken Americans in the process.
The issue extends beyond economics, as concerns about crime and security loom large. Recent incidents, such as the alleged killing of a college student by a migrant with a criminal record, highlight the risks posed by porous borders. The failure to enforce immigration measures effectively may allow individuals with malicious intent, including drug traffickers and gang members, to enter the country undetected, posing threats to public safety.
Furthermore, critics argue that Biden's policies undermine the integrity of legal immigration processes by seemingly prioritizing undocumented immigrants. This could foster resentment among those who have adhered to legal channels for immigration. Moreover, the handling of immigration by the Biden administration has exacerbated political polarization, with opposing views on the effectiveness and compassion of the policies hindering bipartisan efforts towards reform.
In a broader sense, lax border policies are seen by some as compromising national sovereignty by failing to assert control over who enters the country. Critics fear that a nation with porous borders risks losing its identity and governance effectiveness. Overall, the consequences of Biden's border policies, from strained resources to compromised security and heightened polarization, are viewed with deep concern by critics."One major concern is the significant increase in illegal immigration spurred by what is perceived as leniency in immigration enforcement"
If laws are not being enforced, that would be grounds for legal intervention yet virtually the only cases we continually see to be brought are those that claim particular enforcement or policy is inhumane or unconstitutional. I see that there have been attempts by various States either alone or in groups to sue the administration over immigration policy and they've all been denied.
Just last year, the Supreme Court held that Texas and Louisiana did not have standing to bring a suit challenging his administration’s immigration enforcement guidelines in federal court.
They stated..
Legal actions cannot be brought in federal court solely because an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law.
Basically saying that the relief they were seeking could only be found in a change of law... Everything always comes back to Congress.
In other words the opinion summed it up as “we” (SCOTUS) won’t let federal courts adjudicate the merits of complaints about a president’s immigration enforcement measures, but you can seek relief from Congress, which has been deadlocked on immigration issues for almost 40 years. They punted.
"This surge places strain on border resources, overwhelms processing facilities, and raises alarms about national security.
It appears that Congress does not feel this to be an issue.
"ICE will face a $500 million budget shortfall for border security unless Congress takes action". Oh well.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr … rcna138499
"The issue extends beyond economics, as concerns about crime and security loom large. Recent incidents, such as the alleged killing of a college student by a migrant with a criminal record"
Yes, certainly a tragedy. I am not aware of all of the details but I am concerned that certain media has try to make a connection between immigration and crime. We do have quite a lot of solid and recent study that show no such connection.
And looking at one such study from the Cato institute from a few years ago and focusing in specifically on Texas..
"The illegal immigrant criminal conviction rate was 45 percent below that of native‐born Americans in Texas. The general pattern of native‐born Americans having the highest criminal conviction rates followed by illegal immigrants and then with legal immigrants having the lowest holds for all of other specific types of crimes such as violent crimes, property crimes, homicide, and sex crimes.
Since Texas is the only state that records and keeps the immigration statuses of those arrested, we can’t make a direct apples‐to‐apples comparison between Texas and other states".
Media framing migrants or immigrants largely as criminals is more than misleading. Our country has no shortage of homegrown murderers. Just a cursory glance at Google to view the murders our native born people have committed just in the last week is pretty horrific.
https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythica … -and-crime
Heightened polarization is a real concern as well. It is terrible for democracy and probably really threatens to bring our governance to a grinding halt. We can see that already in terms of Congress refusing to act in the best interest of the country and adopt a bipartisan immigration reform bill.I appreciate the effort you've invested in your comment. It's evident that Congress has neglected significant changes to immigration laws for decades. In my perspective, since Biden assumed office, there has been a substantial surge in migrant numbers. A decisive president would have promptly recognized this as a national crisis and implemented measures to temporarily halt asylum applications, allowing for the backlog to be addressed efficiently. This action could have stemmed the influx, facilitated better control over who enters our nation, and facilitated the deportation of those with unsubstantiated asylum claims. Furthermore, it could have served as a wake-up call to Americans about the need for better representation in Congress, potentially aiding in reforming the stagnant political landscape.
As a sovereign nation, the president has the authority to declare a crisis and close borders if necessary. If Congress objects, it would expose the reasons behind the lack of progress on immigration legislation.
However, Biden's response has been inadequate. Instead of taking decisive action, he has resorted to seeking more funding and shifting blame to Congress. Yet, as president, he was entrusted with making tough decisions, which he has failed to do so far. It's evident that Congress is unlikely to budge without strong leadership from the president. Rather than dismantling the previous administration's policies, which albeit imperfect, slowed the flow of asylum seekers, Biden should have taken more drastic measures to address the crisis. At this juncture, the situation has escalated to a severe crisis, adversely affecting numerous states. The imperative now is for the president to close the border.
His present concerns are political, I would think and hope most Americans would see this, and stop making excuses for Biden's lack of problem-solving skills. My gosh his too-little-to-too-late gesture looks very foolish.A decisive president would have promptly recognized this as a national crisis and implemented measures to temporarily halt asylum applications, allowing for the backlog to be addressed efficiently.
The bipartisan immigration bill that Trump tanked provided the tools to do just that. As far as I am aware, I do not believe that he has any legal method, on his own, to alter asylum law. Such an effort would undoubtedly be met with huge legal obstacles.
In my opinion, executive action, no matter how aggressive, won't deliver the significant policy reforms and additional resources Congress can provide and that Republicans rejected.
The president, however, does not currently have the legal authority to suspend U.S. asylum law, which grants migrants on American soil the right to request humanitarian refuge, even when they cross into the country illegally.
Only Congress can change U.S. asylum law.
Trump did try to "shut down" asylum claims.
His efforts were struck down in federal court.
"Trump tried to single-handedly suspend asylum in between ports of entry along the southern border through a proclamation in 2018, using a law House Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republicans have urged Mr. Biden to invoke.
While the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use this law — known as Section 212(f) — to enact restrictions and bans on legal immigration and travel, such as the infamous "travel bans," federal courts prevented the government from citing this authority to suspend asylum law. Trump's 2018 rule was ultimately declared unlawful.".
The court ruled that the authority conflicts with asylum law and the 212f authority doesn’t override it. Looks as if they are attempting to find some type of carve out...
"The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has been reviewing the proposed executive order to determine whether it could sustain legal challenges, a person briefed on the matter said. But some Justice officials have expressed doubts that proposed changes, aimed at trying to address previous court rulings against the Trump-era order, could survive litigation that is sure to follow any move by the Biden administration to use executive action."
As far as bringing back any of Trump's measures, which ones? Covid is over and Mexico says no more wait in Mexico policy.
At this point I think it's completely appropriate to have more pressure applied to Congress to do the job they were elected to.
In terms of slowing down asylum, I think there is not enough media attention to factors that are increasingly pushing these people from their home countries such as poverty, oppression, violence, and natural disaster. You really want to slow asylum down? Maybe the US should put some effort into those push factors. That would be the root of the issue. Personally, I don't think our Congress is capable of something so lofty... They can't even fund our own government as we find ourselves yet again on the brink of a shutdown.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigratio … authority/Butting in once again, and, I am aware I am making an assumption . . .
Your recommendation of the 'push factor' argument was too tempting. It called for some thought back when the administration promoted it as a legitimate effort and assigned the V.P. to lead it. That thought led to an opinion that, though the goal was lofty, and made sense as an ideal to pursue, it was a faulty argument and, most likely, many of its promoters
knew it was an unrealistic effort. It was pablum. That is its only real value.
I recall it was introduced as an effort pointed at a triumvirate of South American nations. What has been heard about it in three years?
That was three nations, now the influx is from dozens of nations.
The idea seems to rely on the U.S. making monetary mitigation efforts in "push factor" nations. Although any program will have legitimate humanitarian goals and motivations, surely you would agree that it will be U.S. monies spent? Tons and tons (literally, aka Iraq?) of U.S. monies.
With all the details intact the argument fails simply due to the impossibility of scale. Are we to address push factors in all contributing nations? From Guatemala to China?
Strip away the details, (nation names, etc.) and the argument fails on the logic of human reality. As long as the citizens are humans there will always be push factors from lesser nations to greater nations. Short of making all nations equal, no available amount of money will significantly mitigate any nation's push factors enough to mitigate the greater nation's immigration problem
GAYes it would be a huge and expensive task to address push factors for various nations. But could targeted programs or interventions aimed toward a few specific nations alleviate some border issues? Would it be more costly in the long run versus the current outdated system, I haven't done much research. My comment on "push" factors was probably based more in my frustration that they are largely ignored by media. I suppose for some media it makes a better story to say migrants are "invited" rather than acknowledging the many factors that cause them to leave their home country.
At the end of the day, if they make it to the border they can claim asylum. If folks do not want them making it to the border then either find a way to keep them home or change the asylum laws.I think the initial effort was targeted (or intended to be) at just three nations. All of the 'local' problem areas—the 'people-level' areas, grow from the same root: a corrupt or inept government. We have decades of proof and billions (hundreds of billions?) of spent dollars that show we can't fix that.
Also, I think the words of the media's argument of being invited, or not, is less important than the actions of what happens at the border. Currently, those actions are saying 'Come on in.'
Fixing the border problem is something Congress could do, but won't. As a preemption, the latest Senate bill was a bandaid, not a 'fix.'
So yes, I think push-factor mitigations would be more expensive than fixing the system we have.
GAHow about deciding who is eligible for asylum before migrants arrive at the southwest border? This would be a more practical, but still ambitious, approach. Looks like the Biden administration proposed this as a policy initiative and set up small “Safe Mobility Offices” in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Columbia that are under-resourced but starting to show promise.
Under this approach, people in Latin America could appear before a US official in their home country, or at least in a nearby safer country, and get a binding determination of their eligibility for asylum before they travel thousands of miles in the hands of dangerous smuggling cartels. Setting up asylum “overseas processing centers” in countries like Colombia, Panama, or Mexico would probably be more efficient and less costly overall than dealing with more than one million people per year coming into the United States who are hoping they can win their cases, when the reality is that very few will succeed. (The United States currently does almost all refugee interviews and processing overseas, so there is precedent for this model.) Overseas processing centers for asylum applicants would take several years to develop but this seems like a common sense solution.
In terms of the Senate bill being a band aid, what is missing? And can any single bill be a "fix" as opposed to a step toward solution? A work in progress to be modified or amended as needed.
https://apnews.com/article/border-migra … 1fe4c7c32bStill shooting from the hip . . .
I think I recall talk about those satellite offices. My perception isn't favorable, didn't the program provide transportation for 'pre-approved applicants? If not, then maybe they're simply extension Embassy offices.
I think I also recall something about a phone app program for mobile applications and pre-approval codes. *shrug"
The mentioned ideas may be helpful, but their mitigation efforts would almost be negligible (an opinion).
The "fix' is realistically simple, and, seems to be seen as a desperate need by both sides. Amend the asylum laws to give the president the authority to close the border to any illegal crossings. Via EO or national crisis declaration, or something . . . Condition the authority however needed but get it done.
It wasn't long ago that 2000 crossings a day were considered more than we could handle (but no administration would call it a crisis), now it's up to 4000 a day. Establishing an unmanageable crisis-level number as a new baseline is nuts. Cap the number at our processing capabilities instead of the other way around.
'Remain in Mexico shouldn't be a diplomatic agreement, it should be a unilateral rule, part of our asylum law: applicants must wait in the bordering nation until accepted in. If Mexico doesn't want them in Mexico they shouldn't let them illegally cross their borders.
My thoughts on almost all ancillary solutions (even beyond the ones mentioned) are curmudgeonly because they all avoid the truth of the real solution. They're the easy road. Our Congress doesn't have the will to take the hard and necessary road.
GAThe "fix' is realistically simple, and, seems to be seen as a desperate need by both sides. Amend the asylum laws to give the president the authority to close the border to any illegal crossings. Via EO or national crisis declaration, or something . . . Condition the authority however needed but get it done.
Isn't that what the bipartisan immigration bill did though?? I know they put a specific number on encounters but isn't that better than nothing? Better certainly than we have currently.Yes, the bill did that, but with bad and illogical conditioning. On this issue, 'half a loaf is not better than none."
GAThe president can close the border today.
He has an open border by design.
The laws to protect the border already exist.
This administration has chosen not to follow the law.
It’s not rocket science."This administration has chosen not to follow the law."
Which law or laws specifically? And if laws have been broken are there currently cases brought?
"The president can close the border today."
Which law allows the border to be closed by presidential action? Are you saying that he has the ability to close down asylum? How?https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
If certain aliens are not permitted to enter by law, then why are they being permitted to enter under this administration?
The president has authority to follow existing laws.
Are you saying he has no authority because certain courts are interfering?
Trump had low border crossings. Even Obama, the “Deporter-in-chief” made some effort to limit illegal border flow.
Biden could do the same, but he has an organized effort to permit illegal aliens to cross into the United States.
At least 8 million (that we know of) and counting. That’s not a random coincidence."If certain aliens are not permitted to enter by law, then why are they being permitted to enter under this administration?"
Of the list of inadmissable aliens, who is being let in against the policy? Which group? And in what numbers? And are there lawsuits pending for breaking this law?
"Trump had low border crossings. Even Obama, the “Deporter-in-chief” did a decent job limiting illegal border flow."
Trump's low border crossings were due to covid and the availability of title 42 as a result.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Trump administration deported about one-third as many immigrants in the country illegally from the interior during its first four fiscal years as the administration of President Barack Obama during the same time frame.
As of December 27, 2023, President Biden’s administration, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), announced the completion of its 11th deportation flight to Central America and Venezuela. This development marks a significant milestone, with nearly half a million individuals deported between May and December 2023.
This figure surpasses the highest seven-month deportation tally under former President Donald Trump. According to the Biden administration’s DHS, the current deportations almost surpass the total for the entire fiscal year of 2019 and exceed the annual totals from 2015 to 2018.
The Cato Institute’s David J. Bier reveals: The Biden administration is deporting individuals at a rate 3.5 times higher per month than the Trump administration.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests, what it calls “encounters”, in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 . Of those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December 31, 2021,
52 percent were released into the United States. Trump used catch and release although many try to deny it. It's inevitable under the current law.
To protect national interests, there are Statutes which give the President broad authority to suspend the entry of non U.S. citizens.
Whether the statutes authorize more sweeping executive action to close many or all of the ports of entry on the southern border to most or all people and goods, however, is a question with which federal courts have not grappled and decided.
That does not keep (nor should it deter) a President from using his authority to control the flow of immigrants into the country... Biden has done the opposite for more than three years, deploying everyone from air-marshals to border-patrol agents to process and provide rides for immigrants crossing the border, rather than do the jobs they are meant to do, to protect Americans.
The Homeland Security Act makes the Secretary of Homeland Security responsible for “securing the borders, territorial waters, ports, terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea transportation systems of the United States, including managing and coordinating those functions transferred to the Department at ports of entry.” A provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), somewhat similarly, grants the Secretary “the power and duty to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against the illegal entry of aliens.”
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as
immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
300,000 migrants a month (that they know of) crossing the border is occurring because that is what the Biden Administration supports and wants, any deflection, any statement saying otherwise is politics and lies.
Reference:
8 U.S. Code § 1185 - Travel control of citizens and aliens
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1185
19 USC 1318: Emergencies
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:19%20section:1318%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title19-section1318)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182Suspend entry to certain groups Ken, not to make changes to asylum law.. this is a gross misrepresentation
Your contention seems well supported, but . . .
I would bet that many of the sharpest and best legal and constitutional minds of several administrations have been tasked with 'finding an executive way.' That none have, almost has to mean there are unavoidable hooks in each mentioned choice.
If the option is there I think someone directly involved would have used it. I bet Pres. Obama had his people look at those options. We know Pres. Trump did. Pres. Biden is in such a fix that he's floating trail ballons about returning to some Trump-era measures. I bet he will use anything he can find in the next 30 days—if it is there. ;-)
GAI believe the real problem lies in co-operation with other nations.
The reason for the success Trump was having, despite great efforts through the courts and Congress to hinder him, was because he negotiated with Mexico to make it happen.
Mexico worked to stop them at its Southern Border, Mexico allowed them to be detained at the Northern border within Mexico, and Trump did his best to have the Border Patrol, ICE and other government agencies do the jobs they were supposed to do.
Keep in mind, hundreds of millions of dollars were (and still are) working to make it possible for millions of migrants a year to make it into America, the UN, NGOs funded in large part by Open Borders Open Society, along with other agencies foreign and domestic work to allow the free flow of migrants, some have further agendas, such as the demise of America as a sovereign nation.
When you have a President that ran a campaign on rejoining the UN's Compact on Migration and Agenda 2030 goals, when you have an Administration that wantonly is working to deconstruct the nation at every level, you get exactly what we have seen the past 3 years.
The only reason there is any appearance of effort to change the current "crisis" is due to November 2024.I think you're right about the money and NGOs (UN, et al), and about their intent (somewhat). I also think the coming election is the primary reason for the latest bill.
As to the Remain in Mexico thing, I mentioned to Willowarbor that I think we have the logical right to put illegal crossers back on the last ground they were on before hitting American soil.
The cleanest and most basic example would be a Mexican citizen illegal crosser. Mexico has no footing to deny us the ability to put that crosser back on Mexican soil. He's (and she) their citizen and it is illogical for them to refuse reentry to their country and it is unreasonable to expect us to accommodate their illogical position. No diplomatic agreement should be required.
GAI think there is a right of our country to do that to ANY persons who travel up through Mexico to cross the border.
This is why Trump motivating Mexico to shut its Southern Border was meeting with success, they have a much smaller border area to cover, and they have tougher methods they are willing to use to keep migrants from crossing.
This would cut off millions of migrants a year from reaching our Southern border, the majority of non-Mexican immigrants are coming up from Central and South America and then crossing the entire nation of Mexico to get here.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the President has broad discretion to suspend the entry of any class of aliens if he finds their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. This authority has been used by presidents in the past to implement travel bans or restrictions, such as the travel bans imposed by the Trump administration in response to perceived security threats.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product … B/LSB10458
The surge in migration has brought about numerous challenges for the states tasked with accommodating and sustaining migrant populations. Issues such as housing shortages and the strain on support services have become increasingly prevalent. Compounding these difficulties are deficiencies in border enforcement, including shortcomings in catch-and-release policies and insufficient staffing, which pose genuine safety concerns for American citizens. This confluence of factors underscores the complex and multifaceted nature of the challenges faced by communities grappling with the influx of migrants.
If legal challenges arise, then so be it. The Biden administration's perceived welcoming stance must be reconsidered, and incentives for migration need to be removed to halt the influx of migrants. This administration has done all they can to attract migrants to make the trip to out border...
Here are just a few common incentives or policies that the Biden administration has implemented or proposed that attract migrants to come to America.
The Biden administration has rolled back several Trump-era immigration policies, such as the "Remain in Mexico" program, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed.
Proposed Pathway to Citizenship: President Biden has proposed legislation that would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already residing in the United States, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders.
Suspension of Deportations: The administration temporarily suspended certain deportations, focusing enforcement efforts on individuals deemed a threat to national security or public safety.
Expansion of Refugee Admissions: The administration announced plans to increase the annual refugee admissions cap, raising it to levels higher than those set by the Trump administration.
DACA Restoration: The administration has taken steps to restore and strengthen the DACA program, providing protections and work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Designations: The administration has granted or extended TPS designations for certain countries, allowing eligible individuals from those countries to remain and work legally in the United States.
Asylum Policy Changes: There have been proposed changes to asylum policies, including efforts to streamline the asylum process and address backlogs in immigration courts."Nationality Act of 1952, the President has broad discretion to suspend the entry of any class of aliens if he finds their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
This does not and cannot alter asylum though. Which group should he choose to single out? And how much of a difference will that make and what would the reasoning be for choosing that particular group? Trump chose a Muslim ban but let's remember that absolutely no changes were made to asylum.
"Compounding these difficulties are deficiencies in border enforcement, including shortcomings in catch-and-release policies and insufficient staffing, which pose genuine safety concerns for American citizens.
How do you even add extra enforcement when Congress hasn't even approved money to do so?
As far as catch and release, the bipartisan immigration bill that Trump turned down would prevent migrants from being able to just cross the border illegally. It would have ended the practice of "catch and release,"
"The Biden administration's perceived welcoming stance must be reconsidered"
Immigration law at its foundation remains unchanged between Trump and Biden.
"Remain in Mexico" program, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed."
"The Mexican government said on Monday it is opposed to a possible restart of the U.S. immigration policy known as "Remain in Mexico" which required asylum seekers to wait for U.S. hearings in Mexico."
Can we force them?
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ … 023-02-07/
I am confused about the policies or incentives you have listed.
None of them have actually been enacted and none of them were included in the bipartisan bill either, nothing for DACA no pathways.
The refugee cap?
The Biden administration is expected to keep the cap on refugees admitted to the country at 125,000 for the next fiscal year, which begins Sunday.
The cap is the target for how many refugees the United States aims to admit from around the world in any given year, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. will admit that many. As of the end of August, the U.S. had admitted only about 51,000 of the possible 125,000 for the current fiscal year.
https://apnews.com/article/refugees-cap … f8d909f214
In terms of deportations,
"Biden administration ramps up deportations
According to the Department of Homeland Security, about 85,000 migrants have been “repatriated” since Title 42 was lifted. That’s up 65% since the same period last year."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr … -rcna96351
In all honesty, the bipartisan immigration bill would seem to have addressed all the issues you've raised.
If Trump for some reason wins the white house, what do folks really think he will be able to do on the border, within the constraints of the law and policy?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr … rcna136656I will need to disagree to disagree. It seems foolish to go back and forth. I guess it's a matter of view on what a president can do regarding executive privilege.
Yes, I suppose I am looking at the legal limitations of executive privilege and what the courts have previously struck down. Trump was not even allowed to do what people are asking for or thinking Biden can do.
"U.S. federal judge on Friday struck down one of President Donald Trump's initiatives to curtail asylum claims, ruling that the government could not reject migrants who had crossed the border illegally".
Why do we expect the results to be different for Biden?
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1US2JH/
And yet Trump was able to resolve the issue, to a large degree, with his Remain in Mexico program. All people seeking asylum by crossing the Southern Border had to wait in Mexico until their case was processed.
Biden did away with that, day one, reinstating Obama's catch and release program, in fact it was modified to be even easier, anyone who crosses the border that can say the word "Asylum" is processed into the system and allowed to go free in America until that case is heard, years later.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/us/p … sylum.html
The number seeking asylum under the Biden Administration has gone up 63% from 2022 to 2023 alone.
The amount of money that it is believed to have been made by the cartels that charge migrants to get them across the border was 1.2 billion last year alone.
Those interested in a decent review of the Border Crisis created by Biden should watch: Invasion of the Southern Border. Below is a trailer:
https://www.dailywire.com/episode/the-o … ern-border"anyone who crosses the border that can say the word "Asylum" is processed into the system and allowed to go free in America until that case is heard, years later.
Yes, because that is the law.
"And yet Trump was able to resolve the issue, to a large degree, with his Remain in Mexico program. All people seeking asylum by crossing the Southern Border had to wait in Mexico until their case was processed."
Biden's attempts to end the policy was in and out of court before The Supreme Court finally said he could end it.
But back in in In December of 2022, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk halted the Biden's attempt to end the program while a legal challenge, launched by Texas and Missouri aimed at forcing its reinstatement, was considered in court.
In a statement, the Foreign Ministry of Affairs in Mexico said, after the judge issued the stay, U.S. authorities notified them of their intention to restart the program.
Mexico responded..
"Regarding the possible implementation of this policy for the third time, 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 again, this policy is no longer an option, it wasn't even an option in 2022. Do people think we will somehow force this upon Mexico?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mexico- … d=96939554In short, it is exactly as I said, Biden day one eliminated or reversed all of Trump's efforts to turn the tide of immigration.
Once we neared election time, it suddenly became something Biden wanted to try to make it appear as if he were working to fix, 3 years later.Can you state the time that the wait in Mexico policy was in effect from the beginning of the Biden administration until now? In exact months? Taking into account all of the pauses by the courts
Also it seems as though you have completely ignored Mexico's response. How do you propose we deal with their insistence they would not reinstate this policy?The Left likes to demand exact facts.
The Left could not care less about exacts facts.
Nonetheless, the Right gives them more Facts.
Again and again.
The Left then ignores facts, and then demands more facts.
And on and on it goes.
The open border is by design.
It is a globalist agenda.
But what concerns me, and which the Left ignores, is that children are being trafficked by the Cartels in record numbers!
The Cartels are making millions off of the backs of poor people who pay around $12,000 per person to cross the border.
And this administration knows that. Make no mistake. They know that.
Furthermore, not all “migrants” who cross the border are seeking asylum.
The Left has no idea how many the CCP has enlisted to cross the border.
The Left has no idea how many prisoners Venezuela (and other countries) have allowed out of their prisons… to cross the U.S. border, and whose “citizens” have gone on to harm and even kill innocent Americans.
Nor does the Left care, because the Right can’t be right, right?
According to their “logic.”
… Until it reaches the home town of the Left.
When a family member is lost, when they cannot see a doctor because…
Maybe then they will get a clue.
Usually, the Left flees to another state. They bring their ideology with them.
Still, they haven’t a clue.
Not until the crisis slaps them in the face.
Sometimes, still, they do not understand.
Somehow, they fail to make the connection, which is quite astonishing.
But, some do realize the Truth.
So, with the strength of a few, there is hope.
Illegal migrants with convictions for murder, rape and child molestation captured at US border
https://www.aol.com/news/illegal-migran … 49856.html
"Border Patrol agents guarding the southern border continue to apprehend dangerous migrants attempting to cross illegally into the country.
U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Chief Jason Owens posted on X Tuesday that in the previous 72 hours, 11 people with violent criminal histories were arrested along the southwestern border.
"Their criminal histories include: child molestation, aggravated assault, rape, murder, [and the] manufacture/trafficking of firearms," Owens wrote.
HONDURAN ILLEGAL MIGRANT ARRESTED FOR RAPE OF GIRL, 14, STABBING MAN DURING KNIFEPOINT ROBBERY
The post was accompanied by mugshots of four of the 11 detainees.
The current status of the detainees is unclear. Fox News reached out to Border Patrol for additional information but did not immediately receive a response.
Last week, Owens revealed that border agents have caught nearly 180 illegal immigrants with gang affiliations so far this year. The gangs, including Paisas and MS-13, are involved with murder, extortion, narcotics, weapons/human trafficking and prostitution, Owens wrote on X.
Owens also wrote that in fiscal year 2024, Border Patrol has apprehended more than 6,400 subjects with criminal convictions. It comes as more than 21,000 Chinese citizens have already been apprehended in the Border Patrol's San Diego Sector alone during the 2024 fiscal year, sparking national security concerns.
Meanwhile, this week an illegal Salvadoran immigrant was arrested in connection to the murder of a toddler in Langley Park, Maryland, while an illegal immigrant from Honduras has been arrested in Louisiana for allegedly raping a 14-year-old girl and repeatedly stabbing another man during a robbery.
Jose Antonio Ibarra, the suspect charged with the killing of nursing student Laken Riley, is an illegal immigrant from Venezuela.
Nearly 7.3 million migrants have illegally crossed the southwest border under President Biden's watch, a number greater than the population of 36 individual states, a Fox News analysis found."
This issue has become a National crisis. The border needs to be closed to asylum seekers. We have an incompetent administration.How will you close the border to asylum seekers exactly? Under what authority? And is your comment stating that migrants are more likely to commit crime? I don't see stats to back that up
You say, sorry, no admittance, the U.S. border is closed! We need to get our s**t together; we are done, we are spent, we are much too vulnerable right now!
Take your family, your group, your convoy, etc., go back home, and seek change in your own Homeland.
We will do the same!That would require a change in the actual asylum law and the only body that can make that change is Congress. How do you close the border without changing asylum law? Trump tried and the courts lef slapped him back
There you have it. Something has got to give or we aren't going to have a country worth escaping to!
I think Ken covered your inquiry about closing the border.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/360 … ost4323032
While statistical analyses may be challenging due to uncertainties about the number of illegal immigrants in the country, the tragic stories of victims and their families are undeniable. These incidents underscore the urgent need for Americans to be aware of the serious consequences of illegal migration, especially when it results in devastating crimes. For the loved ones of victims, the loss is deeply personal and goes beyond mere statistics, as they grapple with the painful reality of lives cut short due to preventable violence perpetrated by individuals who should not have been in the country. The article speaks loudly about criminals entering the country, and at this point, we are seeing a growing number committing serious crimes.The continued claim that a president, any president can close the border is incorrect.
Trump tried to close the border to asylum seekers crossing the border unlawfully while in office, invoking provisions in immigration law, but was blocked by the courts.
In 2018, Trump tried to use 212f, which gives the president broad authority to implement immigration restrictions to restrict border crossings. But ultimately, a federal appeals court ruled that the authority conflicts with asylum law and the 212f authority doesn’t override it.
The president, however, does not currently have the legal authority to unilaterally suspend U.S. asylum law, which grants migrants on American soil the right to request humanitarian refuge, even when they cross into the country illegally.
Only Congress can change U.S. asylum law.
While the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use this law to enact restrictions and bans on legal immigration and travel, such as the infamous "travel bans," (known as his Muslim ban) federal courts prevented the government from citing this authority to suspend asylum law. Trump's 2018 rule was ultimately declared unlawful.
Even Biden has been caught up in court..
"A federal judge in California on Tuesday struck down the Biden administration’s temporary restrictions on migrants seeking asylum, ruling that the government’s plan to reduce illegal crossings on the southern border violated federal law.
In his ruling, Tigar sided with advocacy groups who had urged him to reject the restrictions because they said they endangered migrants and violated federal law, which states that anyone on U.S. soil may request asylum, no matter how they arrived.(Texas Tribune)
How does anyone expect that the circumstances would be any different from Biden? Attempts to limit asylum have consistently been shot down in court after court.
Migrant crime
Charis Kubrin and Graham Ousey literally wrote the book on immigration and crime. They’ve been researching these issues for decades and analyzed numerous studies for their 2023 book, “Immigration and Crime: Taking Stock.” Kubrin is a professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California, Irvine, and Ousey is a professor of sociology and criminology at the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
"Across a variety of studies that use different years of data that focus on different areas of the United States — with some exceptions, there’s some nuance there. I don’t want to deny the nuance — in general, on average, we do not find a connection between immigration and crime, as is so often claimed. The most common finding across all these different kinds of studies is that immigration to an area is either not associated with crime in that area, or is negatively associated with crime in that area. Meaning more immigration equals less crime. It’s rare to find studies that show crime following increases in immigration or with larger percentage of the population that are immigrants""Trump tried to close the border to asylum seekers crossing the border unlawfully while in office, invoking provisions in immigration law, but was blocked by the courts."
Please consider Ken's links for additional context. While you're consistently referencing Trump's actions and intentions, it's crucial to recognize that the border issues during his tenure didn't approach the scale of the current migrant influx awaiting asylum. This surge is overwhelming cities tasked with accommodating them. Border officials face challenges in vetting migrants before release, leading to numerous concerning crimes committed by illegal entrants. Moreover, predicting the influx of "gotaways" is near impossible, and there's a notable rise in asylum seekers with criminal backgrounds. Additionally, there's a concerning uptick in migrants from nations housing terrorists and a significant increase in Chinese nationalists. From my perspective, this poses a serious threat to American safety. Declaring the border a national crisis and implementing closure measures seems imperative.
The current situation highlights the severity of issues that were not as pronounced during Trump's presidency. Trump employed various executive orders to deter asylum seekers, significantly impacting the flow. A simple comparison of migrant flow charts can reveal when this crisis began. It's evident that the current president lacks the necessary leadership abilities. From the outset of his term, this deficiency has been apparent to me. It's perplexing that anyone would defend the administration's failure to address border problems effectively. This is a crisis that could have been prevented from escalating to its current magnitude.
I believe they were just as severe. Trump came to an agreement with Mexico that Biden ended day 1. Trump also had Border agents and ICE doing their jobs, not helping migrants cross into the country as Biden does.
Jan 20, 2021 The Golden Invitation went out around the world... He campaigned on open borders. He blatantly encouraged migrants to make the trip to our borders.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … on-system/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwLYMPLYbo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Yh4OyQ2xw
The current severity at the border is unprecedented, with a history of presidents grappling with influxes. It's as simple as looking at a chart. Biden's actions have exacerbated this issue, and I'm tired of discussing it with those who fail to recognize the danger stemming from his poor judgment and inadequate problem-solving skills. One silver lining is that most major issues are currently concentrated in Sanctuary cities. However, this doesn't negate the fact that we're facing a national crisis, and Biden is our second national crisis, due to his apparent cognitive decline and clear inability to do the job of president. That is exacerbating the situation.
I'm well aware of Biden's actions, from reversing Trump's border policies to his public statements that have inadvertently encouraged migrants worldwide to overwhelm our borders. I have spent enough time offering links, examples, you name it, as you have.
Please consider Ken's links for additional context.
There is absolutely no context there that changes the reality of the law. If you have found so, please highlight and advise.
The Supreme Court stopped the Trump administration from restricting asylum through the use of 212f... That is just a fact, no context needed. How is it expected that Biden could successfully use it now? No one has been able to answer that question.
Biden has already been pushed back in several court cases due to infringements on asylum.
"Trump employed various executive orders to deter asylum seekers"
And which of these could realistically and lawfully be brought back today? Neither MMP nor Title 42 are options.
"This surge is overwhelming cities tasked with accommodating them. Border officials face challenges in vetting migrants before release, leading to numerous concerning crimes committed by illegal entrants."
Stats on this? Since border states began busing migrants to, let's say, New York City, what is the difference in crime rate overall?
"Declaring the border a national crisis and implementing closure measures seems imperative"
There is no mechanism to completely close the border beyond Congress giving that power to the president. That is just a matter of fact. The bipartisan immigration bill did give emergency powers.
Again, in 2018, Trump tried to use the 212f, which gives the president broad authority to implement immigration restrictions to restrict border crossings. But ultimately, a federal appeals court ruled that the authority conflicts with asylum law and that the 212 of authority does not override it.
This is crystal clear. Should Biden use the authority to target one group As Trump did with muslims? 212f gives that authority but it does not allow asylum to be changed or limited broadly.
In terms of flow to the border, covid made a significant impact in reducing numbers during Trump's tenure.
Migrants’ decisions to move are varied and change over time. Our actual immigration laws have remained unchanged for 30 years. It's obvious that they do not meet current changes in immigration patterns.
It seems to be that many are attempting to make a case that a surge in migration is due to a president rather than factors that push them from their home countries.
I cannot find a way to that conclusion seeing that our immigration policies have remained unchanged. Yes, global migration has increased, what are the reasons for that? History shows us that migration numbers ebb and flow for various reasons.
Overall, the estimated number of international migrants has increased over the past five decades. The total estimated 281 million people living in a country other than their countries of birth in 2020 was 128 million more than in 1990 and over three times the estimated number in 1970.
One last thing, your posts always spur great thought in conversation
Biden has everything to gain in an election year in terms of addressing immigration. If he could, with the swipe of his pen, enact some sort of substantial reform, wouldn't he?
Seems like that would cinch an election. I can't find a reason why he would ignore potential actions that are available to him? Not a great re-election strategy.
https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/wm … in%201970.H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, a bill dating back to 2015 after Kate Steinle's death, passed the House in 2017, but has been stalled in the Senate, by Democrats. Why do suppose Dems would hold up a law which would keep criminal illegals from using our southern border as if utilizing a revolving door?
It looks like this bill has been introduced and reintroduced since 2015 and is always unsuccessful in garnering the needed votes.
Even in 2017 when Republicans held the White House, Senate and the house the bill didn't pass. It didn't even receive 100% of Republican votes at that time. That's a big red flag..
Actually, if I use logic that I frequently read on this forum, can I blame Trump for today's immigration policy as he failed at reforming the laws when he held the Congress?
Not executive orders, changes in actual law. Changes that couldn't be reversed without Congress. Seems to me that presidents have been failing at that since the '80s.
"This surge is overwhelming cities tasked with accommodating them.
What were the causes of the surges experienced under the Trump administration and how did he react?
Let's look back at 2019
"The surge of migrant families arriving at the southern border has led the Trump administration to dramatically expand a practice President Donald Trump has long mocked as “catch and release.”
'With immigrant processing and holding centers overwhelmed, the administration is busing people hundreds of miles inland and releasing them at Greyhound stations and churches in cities like Albuquerque, San Antonio and Phoenix because towns close to the border already have more than they can handle.
in recent months, the number of families crossing into the U.S. has climbed to record highs, pushing the system to the breaking point. As a result, the government is releasing families faster, in greater numbers and at points farther removed from the border."
The fact is, there was a surge at that time, what caused it? oppression, poverty, climate factors from migrants home countries. Should I believe that the surge was an invitation of some kind from trump? No I don't. And do I blame him for catch and release, absolutely not. That is actually the only thing in place to deal with a surge. That was true then and it is true now.
https://apnews.com/article/san-antonio- … 02bc43e1d6
Ken: We've chased some rabbits down the hole here. But your initial information:
75% of Democrats trust National MSM news sources
Less than 25% of lean/Republicans have any faith in MSM news.
Roughly 50% of independents say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence.
My theory: People don't like to be told what they don't want to hear - that accounts for these stats more than anything else.
I've had some experience with the media, so I'm sure I see things from a different perspective than most.A rabbit hole of your making.....
I was responding to your comment:
"Did he sexually assault anyone and get found guilty of it?"I think the bigger question is did he have a fair trial.
Anyone objective and honest person would look at what occurred during that trial and scream "NO."
A very interesting interview OF Tucker Carlson, just done, its a 3 hour discussion (I suggest you skip the first 5 minutes of the interviewer going on about why he is doing the interview) some interesting perspectives from Tucker, that help add context to some of his recent interviews (IE - Putin) and the state of international affairs.
One comment in particular stuck in my head: "The world is resetting to the detriment of America."
I would add a second sentence to that: "Largely due to the inept, criminal, leadership of the Biden Administration." but that's IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lRdkH_QoYCould biden be working with the UN to undermine US immigration? How they can arrive in the US well fed, with new phones and more now can be understood. Mexico probably has no problems because of all the money being spent in Mexico by the people heading to the US
UN Budgets Millions for U.S.-Bound Migrants in 2024
Public docs show cash handouts to help feed, transport, and house people headed for the U.S. border
Early on in America’s historic border crisis, now entering its fourth record-smashing year, some Republican lawmakers named a significant enabling culprit other than the usual Mexican cartel smugglers. They named the U.S. taxpayer-funded United Nations as essentially a co-smuggler after seeing my reports that the UN was handing out debit cards and cash vouchers to aspiring illegal border crossers on their way north.
One outraged group of 21 border-security-minded lawmakers even pitched a bill that would require the United States, the UN’s largest donor, to turn off the taxpayer money spigot. H.R. 6155 never caught fire, though, in no small part because “fact checks” claiming to debunk other reports like mine in the conservative press dissuaded broader media interest and left the American public in the dark.
But now the UN’s 2024 update to the “Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan” (RMRP for short), a planning and budget document for handing out nearly $1.6 billion in 17 Latin America countries, can cast a broad confirming light on the cash giveaways and much more aid for 2024 ahead — with the helping hands of 248 named non-governmental organizations. Despite the RMRP plan title naming Venezuelans as recipients of this aid operation, the document’s fine print (footnote on p. 14 and paragraph on p. 43, for instance) says the largesse goes to “all nationalities” and “multiple other nationalities”.
The documents clear up any mystery about what the UN and NGOs are doing on the migrant trails and leave no room for supposedly debunking “fact checks”.
In a nutshell, the UN and its advocacy partners are planning to spread $372 million in “Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA)”, and “Multipurpose Cash Assistance (MCA)” to some 624,000 immigrants in-transit to the United States during 2024. That money is most often handed out, other UN documents show, as pre-paid, rechargeable debit cards, but also hard “cash in envelopes”, bank transfers, and mobile transfers the U.S. border-bound travelers can use for whatever they want.
The $372 million in planned cash giveaways to the 624,000 immigrants moving north and illegally crossing national borders “represents a significantly greater share of the financial requirements” for 2024, the RMRP says, but it is still only one part of much broader UN hemisphere-wide vision that aims to spend $1.59 billion assisting about three million people in 17 countries who emigrated from their home nations. Most will be “in-destination” recipients already supposedly settled in third countries, albeit in declining numbers, but a rising share of cash will go to the spiking numbers of “in-transit” immigrants launching journeys from those accommodating countries north to the United States.
Without distinction, both populations get access to UN cash but also “humanitarian transportation”, shelter, food, legal advice, personal hygiene products, health care, and “protection” against threats like human smuggling, and much more besides cash in envelopes or debit cards.
The cash handouts will be in the mix during 2024 as the UN and its private partners incorporate an “increased use of CVA” in, for instance, the $184 million it plans to provide 1.2 million people, $122 million for rent support and also “temporary collective shelter” for 473,000 people, and $25.8 million for “humanitarian transportation” to 129,000 people crossing borders. There’ll also be “expanded use of multi-purpose cash” for those claiming “gender-based violence”.
The UN’s 2024 Game Plan
The 130-page UN-spearheaded RMRP 2024 update went public in December and is readily accessible online, as is the original 2023-2024 plan it revises — sharply upward. It is the latest since the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN’s International Organization for Migration started the program in 2018, originally for Venezuelans but now open to anyone in 17 nations of Latin America and the Caribbean. (For the complete list of involved groups, see p. 268, here, and explore their activities further with this handy interactive tool).
Some 57 international organizations would manage the handouts of $273 million, while 132 “national NGOs” and “civil service organizations” would handle $70 million in aid. Fifteen UN agencies would get the lion’s share at $1.2 billion.
The NGOs actively participated in crafting the RMRP 2024 Update, which amends a 2023-2024 plan released back in 2022 that at the time foresaw a decline in illegal immigration after 2023. It increased, instead.
“Country-level projections of in-transit movements for populations moving north through Central America and Mexico have been revised sharply upwards,” p. 44 explains in updating the 2024 RMRP update.
The reasons given include factors like “xenophobia” leading resettled migrants to leave for the United States. It does, finally, tag the real culprit: U.S. policies that created “newly established opportunities for regular pathways to move to the United States of America” for those who could make their way to northern Mexico.
The document makes clear in writing that the UN and these partners know their endeavor aids, abets, and makes possible the “onward movement” of immigrants who intend to illegally cross borders, especially to get into the United States.
None of them care. Twenty new groups joined the UN endeavor for 2024 for a total of 248.
Their plan frequently acknowledges the illegality, saying for instance, that one in three of the Venezuelan migrants the UN aims to help are in “irregular situations", including those “who have crossed international borders without complying with all the legal and administrative requirements for entry and may not have the required documentation to do so”, as well as visa overstayers. The original 2023-2024 plan even spelled out that “special attention will be given to the use of [cash and voucher assistance] for in-transit populations, including the need for comprehensive solutions throughout the journey”.
The only expression of apparent concern about supporting people clearly intending to break U.S. law shows up on a page depicting a map with the thin red line of a migration route leading to the U.S. border at about El Paso. Someone took the trouble to add a footnote on that page noting that the map “does not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the UN”.
Why hand out hundreds of millions of dollars as cash and services to hundreds of thousands planning to illegally follow that red line through UN member states, to include crossing the US border, when those nations don’t like or want it and must bear the political controversies of it?
“To support access to asylum procedures, migratory regularization activities, and socio-economic integration”, the plan says.
The money handout program “has taken on increasing importance”, it explains elsewhere, because it gives growing numbers of immigrants “the flexibility to cover their expenses and needs they deem most urgent, increasing their dignity and autonomy”.
Related Discussions
- 39
Wavering Black voters: Biden is flawed, but Trump is unacceptable
by Tim Mitchell 6 months ago
Wavering Black voters: Biden is flawed — and Trump is unacceptable by NBC News (Feb 29, 2024)https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … rcna140786"Months of polling has shown a segment Black voters, a key part of President Joe Biden’s base, souring on his performance and growing more...
- 22
Foreign Policies / 2024 Debate Issue.
by Kathryn L Hill 2 days ago
Neither candidate has zeroed in on the best way to deal with current foreign affairs/wars. What will JDT do about Israel/Hamas/Iran?What will JDT do about Ukraine /Russia?What will Harris do about Israel/Hamas/Iran?What will Harris do about Ukraine/Russia?After all, "Before he/(she) enter on...
- 68
Tonight, June 27th is the debate Trump vs. Biden. A blockbuster?
by Tim Mitchell 2 months ago
Tonight Trump and Biden go head to head offering observers perspective of this and that. A lot 'may' be learned. The rules have changed, but purpose hasn't. Are you going to watch? Any particular topic of prime importance? Where Biden and Trump stand on key 2024 issues heading into the 1st debate...
- 116
Danger: Biden's Presidency akin to the Weimar Republic redux?
by Credence2 6 months ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
- 148
Is Biden the real danger to Democracy?
by Readmikenow 5 months ago
To suppress Americans who disagree with biden he is currently fighting in the Supreme Court to continue having the power to violate Americans' 1st Amendment rights & censor them online. Supreme Court frowns at limiting biden administration’s contact with tech companiesThe high court...
- 20
POTUS Immunity? If the SC is not a Rightwing Tribunal, why are we here
by Credence2 6 months ago
It was interesting to note a recent Supreme Court ruling:“On the self-executing issue, the unsigned majority “per curiam” decision is not merely evasion, but error. It rewrites Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Where the section says that Congress may enact legislation to enforce the amendment, the...