The speeches from the former staff members of Trump
Did anyone else see the speeches at the DNC by Trump's former staff?
How credible do you think their testimonies are?Kathleen good current topic with the DNC convention happening this week.
I didn’t watch the DNC convention last night, but I did catch several key speakers this morning online. Stephanie Grisham, the former White House Press Secretary, caught my attention, and I watched her speech on CNN. I will stick to the subject of credibility, and share just my view, as an audience member. What I walked away with as an individual.
She came across as honest and forthright in her views about Trump, and I don’t see any reason to doubt her perspective. After all, she did work closely with him.
However, when she spoke about Kamala Harris, her comments felt somewhat hollow. How could she genuinely know Harris’s character? Has she ever worked with her, or is she just assuming Harris is trustworthy and honest?
I only know about Harris from what I’ve found online and from observing her recent speeches, in which she read from a teleprompter. She hasn’t held a town hall or press conference yet, and I feel like I’d get a better sense of her if she spoke off the teleprompter, live. I’ve also researched her Senate record through official government sources and watched her over the years as Vice President. She’s generally just not visible seems to avoid high-pressure situations and has done few interviews.
This leads me to question how Grisham could really speak to Harris’s honesty. Personally, based on my research, I’m not particularly impressed with Harris’s job performance, but I also haven’t found any concrete evidence to suggest she’s either dishonest or honest. I have found her to have flip-flopped on many issues.
So, in critiquing Grisham's speech --- I found while Grisham’s speech started out believable, by the end, it left me questioning the believability of her statements altogether. It sort of became just another political type of speech, where one can say just about anything without truely being able to back their words up with anything concrete. I would have found it more believable if she just spoke about the candidate she knew and worked with, and had a right to offer her view on.
For those who didnt watch them.
Olivia Troye, former homeland security and counterterrorism advisor to former Vice President Mike Pence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epga8bEodMY
Stephanie Grisham, former press secretary for former President Donald Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCjnETy3p2A
Not former Trump staff but other republicans:
Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E52Zz7MbGk8
Former Trump voter Kyle Sweetser
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3QVmx5vdbMThank you for the names and links, I had heard former Trump supporters/administration had been speaking on behalf of the DNC.
These aren't former Trump supporters... thank you for the clarification.
They did work for the government, in some form, but none were "supporters" of Trump.
More ado about nothing.
Thank you.
MAGAs won't listen to the other side, understandably.
Maybe they will listen to their own.
When has this kind of thing ever happened before? NeverListen? To the RINO's? Unlikely - it is well established that those evil people have defected to the enemy. Traitors that are to be shunned and (if possible) dispatched with all speed possible.
Of course, I've heard the equivalent term used on ex-Democrats as well. Or at least (as here) on party people that don't toe the line of what their masters tell them.
Both of our parties have become so strong that party members dare not question, dare not argue with, dare not disagree with whatever the top echelons tell them will be their policy as a party member.
(Do you question the ethics of millions of people voting to put Biden on the ballot and then the VIP's deciding that no, it will be Harris instead, and all those millions of votes will be applied to Harris rather than the person they actually voted for. Does it make you wonder at all? This IS the second time in recent years that party has ignored the people and done as the controllers wish - do you question such actions, or just fall in line because, after all, Trump is Satan personified and the ends justify the means.)
I wonder what former staff members of harris would say...considering she had a 92% turnover rate.
‘Not a healthy environment’: Kamala Harris’ office rife with dissent
There is dysfunction inside the VP’s office, aides and administration officials say. And it’s emanating from the top.
In interviews, 22 current and former vice presidential aides, administration officials and associates of Harris and Biden described a tense and at times dour office atmosphere. Aides and allies said Flournoy, in an apparent effort to protect Harris, has instead created an insular environment where ideas are ignored or met with harsh dismissals and decisions are dragged out. Often, they said, she refuses to take responsibility for delicate issues and blames staffers for the negative results that ensue.
“People are thrown under the bus from the very top, there are short fuses and it’s an abusive environment,” said another person with direct knowledge of how Harris’ office is run. “It’s not a healthy environment and people often feel mistreated. It’s not a place where people feel supported but a place where people feel treated like s---.”
The dysfunction in the VP’s ranks threatens to complicate the White House’s carefully crafted image as a place staffed by a close-knit group of professionals working in concert to advance the president’s agenda. It’s pronounced enough that members of the president’s own team have taken notice and are concerned about the way Harris’ staffers are treated."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/3 … ent-497290
"VP Harris' office sees high rate of staff turnover since beginning of term
Vice President Kamala Harris’ office has had high levels of staff turnover throughout her time in the office that far exceed other high-ranking officials in the federal government.
Nearly 92% of the initial staff members hired after she took office in January of 2021 have left at some point during her nearly four years as vice president. Only four of the initial 47 hires from her first year have remained employed without interruption,
https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/v … ng-of-term
"VP Kamala Harris Staff Had a 92% Turnover Rate
“Nobody seems to like working for Kamala Harris,” said Adam Andrzejewski, CEO of Open the Books (OTB).
OTB’s latest investigation found the over the last two years, the Office of Vice President under Kamala Harris had a staff turnover rate at 92%, and that was just in 2021. Out of 47 employees, only four employees remained employed.
“It’s a “revolving door, a staff exodus of key aides heading for the exits,” said Andrzejewski.
OTB also says over the past year, Harris has lost another 24 staffers in one year, “that’s half her payroll in one year,” said the report!
https://floridadaily.com/vp-kamala-harr … over-rate/Wow...
She is going to be our own personal Stalin...
Buckle up, its going to be a fun ride...
All good, life is boring, going to work every day, going home to a nice house, driving a nice car, taking the dog for a walk, always having too much food to choose from in the fridge(s)...
Boring... lets shake it up and turn the world upside down... always enjoyed the game Fallout, the original(s) came out decades ago, still an extremely popular game.
Come on, deep down inside you know you want the Apocalypse to come, you want a post-world-war world to live in... think of how fun it will be when it all comes crashing down... no boredom in that.Trump's turnover rate as president was at 92%. It was much greater than the last five presidents.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/and- … o-remains/Well we know why Trump had such a high turnover rate, everyone within the establishment was fighting him every step of the way.
Trump was as much an outsider to DC politics as one can get.
But it seems strange that a VP... one hand selected by the Party to fill that position... had such a high turnover rate.
When Harris is caught on the side and commenting off the cuff, I think we get a very clear idea of who she is and how she will approach things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBoSf5x8AQ4
In that clip she speaks on how if Congress will not act to make weapons illegal, she will do so through executive action.
I believe her. I believe she will be a President that is unburdened by what has been... she is going to make changes to America that are unconstitutional and against the very separations of power... and she will do so unburdened by the legality of it.
That is when America will find out our system only works when the Executive Office respects the separate powers... that is the only thing that gives power to the Supreme Court and Congress... once the Executive branch no longer accepts the responsibility and authority of the other branches, well then, we have a nicely dressed up Tyranny.
Or one Party system.
We are just 75 days or so away from that becoming reality... SO CLOSE!"she is going to make changes to America that are unconstitutional and against the very separations of power... and she will do so unburdened by the legality of it."
Well… not quite. For starters, executive orders can’t violate the Constitution. And if the other party feels an order doesn’t pass constitutional muster, they can and will take it to the courts.
Also important to remember, executive orders only directly affect agencies in the Executive branch of the government, not the Legislative or Judicial branches and not anything outside the government. They piggyback on existing law but an EO cannot overturn law. They can only be written in areas where Executive Authority applies.
Executive Orders are far more limited in their scope and power than most people realize.
What sort of EO'S are you implying she would enact? The YouTube video you posted, is that Harris speaking in 2020? If so, it is a misrepresentation of what she proposed.
Where has she ever spoken, as claimed, in the above post that she wants to make weapons "illegal"?
EO'S certainly cannot be used to make law.Right now we have a rogue Supreme Court thanks to Donald Trump, and when she is elected, backlash to that court will have played a big role in getting her elected. As you say, it will be interesting.
Why is it 'rogue'?
Oh, that's right, because it continues to put a halt to the illegal and immoral efforts of the Biden Administration and the like.
Yeah, it sucks, that it is taking so much time to transform America, if not for those Justices that Trump chose, if Hillary had won and filled those seats, the transformation of America would be complete by now.
So disheartening that the majority on the SC support the Constitution, the first and second Amendments, things could have been so different... if not for Trump.This court has set women's rights back to the 19th Century. Repealing Roe v. Wade actually violates the rights of Jewish people. Check it out, I'm not kidding. Also, I noticed that the Comstock Act is being brought up in some of the forums on HP. Are you happy to see people being controlled by irrational religious nuts?
As a kid I remember when towns rolled in their sidewalks at 5 pm and nobody could purchase anything on Sunday. Better get extra bread and some milk for the baby on Saturday. Do you really want to go back to that kind of control? I see nothing Constitutional about this, either then or now.Actually that would be nice.
A day of rest.
Not having to scurry to work.
Non essentails forced to close.
We could call Covid Day for those athiests that want a meaning for it that is not religious, in remenbrance of how an overbearing government not answerable to the people can take away your rights and freedoms so easily.
I agree that Trump faced a high turnover rate due to an entrenched establishment that he wasn’t a part of. In my opinion, common sense suggests that Harris’s turnover rate isn’t due to any establishment but rather individual reasons, with many finding her difficult to work with. This could point to flaws in her character or work ethic, although we may never truly know. Additionally, when Harris is off-script, her demeanor seems less polished, which might indicate discomfort speaking unscripted. That concerns me.
As for her various promises, like making certain weapons illegal, most of them aren't something she could achieve without Congress. Hopefully, Americans will keep this in mind when deciding who to vote for. Given her experience as a Senator, she should be well aware that she lacks the power to change or create laws independently. This makes me feel she is being dishonest to the American citizens making such unrealistic promises.
While she might try to work around some of the promises she's made, the majority of her goals would be impossible to accomplish without Congress's support.
I hope Americans take the time to examine her job performance, going back to her days as District Attorney in California, through her tenure as a Senator, and now as Vice President. To make an informed decision, it's essential to consider her past, understand her ideologies, and get to know her better. In two words, do research.The restrictions you think are on the Exec office and EOs are not there.
Consider how the Exec office directed the Border Patrol to become a Meet and Greet service.
The Border Patrol was created to deter illegal entry into America.
The Biden Administration corrupted its purpose.
The Border Patrol now aids migrants in their efforts to cross the border, and provide them with aid in getting to the State of their choice.Just my opinion—I agree with you. The border patrol has been turned into a welcoming committee, not by their own choice. This is yet another example of a corrupt administration weaponizing a federal agency and flipping it on its head, while trying to convince the public that there’s nothing to see here. And what’s laughable is that some people are completely oblivious and can't see what's right in front of them.
Biden clearly isn't, and never has been, the one making decisions. He's just the figurehead set up to take the blame for the chaos this reckless group has created with their wild ideologies.
Trump's turnover rate as president was at 92%
No it wasn't...read your article.
"Do you question such actions, or just fall in line because, after all, Trump is Satan personified and the ends justify the means."
Never been described as someone who just falls in line. But then, you don't know me.
And when a powerful woman is described as difficult to work with, I take it with a grain of salt. One person's "difficult" is another person's "determined".
And Trump has shown us who he is over the course of the last eight years, and probably before that but not so many were paying attention back then. His statements and actions have formed my opinion.
I was a newspaper reporter/editor. I don't romanticize politicians. But I do recognize "a satan" when I see one. I don't care how much he's added to my portfolio."Donald Trump has suffocated the soul of the Republican Party. His fundamental weakness has coursed through my party like an illness. Sapping our strength. Softening our spine. Whipping us into a fever that has untethered us from our values."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOdsrc5Q9U0Wow. Wish Trump could talk like that; a real politician. Trump has the message down pat, but cannot deliver the lies and exaggerations like that.
A very good attempt at rousing emotions while giving no facts at all.You can look at it another way.
The establishment is that desperate to maintain control, they are willing to show beyond a doubt, that it is US against them.
Republicans, Democrats, same party... The established elites, taking orders from the same masters... Big Pharma, MIC, UN... Not the people. They do not what is best for Americans, but the NWO that is being brought about by forces far more powerful than "the People".
They want you to support the selected (not elected) Party figurehead and denounce the people who believe America needs to take care of Americans first.
They want you to villainize the people who believe America is a special nation, that the Constitution should be adhered to... Those deplorable Americans that believe their citizenship should matter, that their voices should matter.
Such people are the enemy of the Party... The Establishment... They need to be treated just like every other enemy to the Party has been treated throughout history, that stood in the way of transitioning to a better world.
Look to China's transition to a better system, a one Party system, look at all they accomplished since the CCP took control.
That is what is needed here, to restore order, to protect our Democracy from the white supremacists that threaten it under the guise of Patriotism and Nationalism.Wilderness: Don't know who you are addressing about a lack of facts, but each of these quotes and links is fact-packed.
Think about this: There has never been a Republican speak at the Democratic Convention and endorse their candidate.
If nothing else makes a dent, at least think about that factt.It gives a lot to think about... doesn't it?
All the accusations that there is no difference anymore between Republican and Democrat, that those who are in DC are part of the same Swamp.
You are right, it's definitely telling.
On an aside, this former Prosecutor has an interesting take on Harris' promise to enforce extreme gun control... like all things, makes you wonder why these efforts weren't made in the last 4 years... but anywho:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ZlT4ba3nEReturning to your thread subject, and the subject of your comment. Which offered food for thought.
"Think about this: There has never been a Republican speak at the Democratic Convention and endorse their candidate.
If nothing else makes a dent, at least think about that factt."
I didn’t look too far back, but in my opinion, this demonstrates courage and bipartisanship. Isn’t this a good thing? Doesn’t it set a precedent for speaking one’s mind, regardless of party affiliation?
Republicans have spoken at Democratic National Conventions (DNC). Here are some notable examples:
Michael Bloomberg (2016, 2020): Former Mayor of New York City and a former Republican, Michael Bloomberg spoke at both the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. In 2016, he endorsed Hillary Clinton, and in 2020, he endorsed Joe Biden, citing their policies and the need to defeat Donald Trump.
Colin Powell (2020): The former Republican Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, Colin Powell, spoke at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. He endorsed Joe Biden, emphasizing Biden's character and experience.
John Kasich (2020): The former Republican Governor of Ohio and 2016 Republican presidential candidate, John Kasich, spoke at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. He endorsed Joe Biden, stating that the nation needed to unite and that Biden could help restore the soul of the country.
Meg Whitman (2020): A former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and a Republican, Meg Whitman also spoke at the 2020 DNC to endorse Joe Biden, arguing that he would bring competence and compassion to the presidency.
Here is a list of Democrats who have spoken at Republican National Conventions (RNC) over the years:
Zell Miller (2004): Zell Miller, a Democratic Senator from Georgia, delivered the keynote address at the 2004 RNC. He endorsed President George W. Bush for re-election and criticized the Democratic Party's direction, aligning more with the conservative values of the Republican Party at the time.
Joe Lieberman (2008): Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic Senator from Connecticut and the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, spoke at the 2008 RNC. By this time, Lieberman was serving as an Independent but had been a lifelong Democrat. He endorsed Republican nominee John McCain, primarily for McCain's foreign policy positions.
Artur Davis (2012): Artur Davis, a former Democratic Congressman from Alabama, spoke at the 2012 RNC. Davis, who had seconded the nomination of Barack Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, switched parties and endorsed Mitt Romney, criticizing President Obama and the direction of the Democratic Party.
David Clarke (2016): David Clarke, the Democratic Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, spoke at the 2016 RNC. Though he was a registered Democrat, Clarke was known for his conservative views and strong support of Republican candidates and policies, particularly those related to law enforcement.And that is a very positive outlook on it.
See, there is more than one way to look at something, yours is just as good as mine.Hi Kathleen, I remembered a few instances, and it got me thinking. I believe this demonstrates a bit of bipartisanship, even if it's just a small example. It takes courage to stand up and speak one's truth, especially when there's a risk of facing criticism from your own political party.
More GOP leaders endorse Harris:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ey-mccain/Staffers of Bush, McCain, and Romney?
These are not GOP leaders. Romney and Bush have no standing in the Republican party. McCain, he was always considered a Republican In Name Only....RINO, as was Romney.
Not surprised by this at all.Correct, more exposure of the Establishment...the Uni-Party within DC.
Republicans simping for Socialist/Communist politicians and policies?
Who would have believed it possible during the Reagan era?Regarding Romney, Bush, and McCain, I agree with you; their conservative ideologies were to be expected. Each had their own distinct conservative viewpoints, and the Republican Party has historically encompassed a wide range of ideological perspectives. In my view, their ideologies didn't significantly influence the broader party's views. I found all of them inspirational in their own right and men of conviction. Even though I did not always share their thoughts.
I like to make the point when this article is brought up that these are former members of their staff. They have nobody following them.
RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have millions of people who have supported them in their political career.
It is a BIG difference.
This is article is just a desperate attempt by the democrats to say "see...there are Republicans that support harris...see."
It's so sad.Good point.
I am sure there is a decent list that could be made of Democrats that have crossed over to Trump, more than just Gabbard and Kennedy.RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have millions of supporters, and in my opinion, this could benefit Trump. The article seems to present a narrative aimed at misleading readers into believing that "many Republicans have turned away from Trump." From my perspective, this article is full of misinformation—it's just feeding people what they want to hear, plain and simple.
It has become more than 'sad"... It has become downright disgusting, a strong word, but our Nation is being run by corrupt, inept individuals. Time to clean house.
"These are not GOP leaders. Romney, Bush, McCain,"
Seriously? A former GOP president, two senators who were GOP presidential candidates? Not leaders in the GOP? Who are the leaders then? (Don't answer that. We know.)The article wasn't about them, it was about their staffers.
BIG difference.
"They have nobody following them."
But they are the ones behind the scenes who know where the bodies are buried.How many indictments have followed the ones who were running the nation before?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-bi … rcna139200
A federal grand jury returned a nine-count indictment in December 2023 charging Robert Hunter Biden (Hunter Biden) with three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses.Anyone like to comment with supporting information, that the border patrol is a welcoming committee?
Let's take a look at Biden's executive action from June of this year and it's impact on border patrol agents.
The one thing that is new is that in the past, an immigration official would ask a migrant whether they feared persecution or torture if they were to be deported. Now, agents don't have to ask that. The burden would fall on immigrants. They'd have to manifest a fear of persecution, and the new rules also raises the criteria to demonstrate credible fear.
"The executive action calls on U.S. authorities to deport asylum seekers from U.S. soil without affording them a chance to seek protection, making exceptions for unaccompanied children, severe trafficking victims, and those who can prove a very high threshold of fear of return. "
Again, there is a little-noticed clause in the new policy. It has changed how migrants are treated when they first arrive at the border.
"Under the new rules, border agents are no longer required to ask migrants whether they fear for their lives if they are returned home. Unless the migrants raise such a fear on their own, they are quickly processed for deportation to their home countries."
While being far from welcoming, is it even legal? No it is not, it violates the refugee act of 1980. That is why it is currently being dragged through the court system where it will meet it's eventual death. But until then, it will continue to show results. "The number of people asking for haven in the United States has dropped by 50 percent since June, according to new figures from the Department of Homeland Security."
I know it's disappointing to many but it is still reality that our laws state that...
" any non-citizen on U.S. soil has the right to request asylum if they fear for their life or freedom “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” They must receive due process for their asylum request regardless of how they arrived in the United States. "
Since Biden's order? accusations of border agents actually ignoring fear claims, citing the order.
https://tucson.com/news/local/border/us … ba81b.html
https://www.wola.org/analysis/futility- … co-border/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/24/us/p … tions.htmlThe "Keep in Mexico" policy under the administration of President Donald Trump was very effective in controlling the southern border.
Under President Biden’s watch, there have been over 8 million migrant
encounters nationwide, 6.7 million of which have been at the Southwest border.
Worse yet, over 1.7 million known gotaways—illegal immigrants who have evaded Border Patrol— are now living in the interior of the United States without documentation and without having undergone any vetting by immigration officials.
Former director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tom Homan told Congress that President Joe Biden is the only president in U.S. history to “unsecure the border on purpose.”
The dangerous rise in known gotaways, pounds of illicit drugs flowing over the border—over 50,000lbs of fentanyl since Biden took office, and a significant increase in potential terrorist apprehensions are all factors that spell out more than just a crisis at our Southern Border.
The New York Times reports that over 24,000 Chinese citizens crossed from Mexico into the United States in 2023 alone. Additionally, over 35,000 illegal aliens with criminal convictions were apprehended in FY2023—how many more are among the 1.7 million known gotaways?
These staggering figures should send chills down the spine of every law enforcement officer in the nation. The Biden Administration is solely responsible for the disastrous state of our Southern Border.
Like I said before, the two types of people those on the left love are illegal aliens and criminals. There are plenty of both at the southern border so I'm sure they're quite happy with it.
The left seems to hate law-abiding American citizens. They even think illegal aliens come before Americans or should be treated the same as American citizens.
It's pretty disgusting.Can you address the question though. At this point in time, due to Biden's executive order, statistics show the lowest southwest border encounters in more than three years.
This would seem to counter the claim made above that border agents are a "welcoming committee. ".If the boarder encounters are so low, why did the biden administration wait until an election year to make this happen?
Why wait until millions of illegal aliens have come into the country, broken the law, increased illegal drugs, overwhelmed the social safety systems in various cities, and even taken over parts of a city?
The low border encounters proves to me the actions of the biden administration to let illegal aliens into the country was intentional. They could have stopped it at any time they desired.
Why did they do this?This is politics. This is the way it works. He had been working on immigration since day one. Congress did not want to solve any of the issues with legislation. What was he left to do? Especially after Trump tanked the bipartisan deal?
His executive action is illegal, just like Trump's were illegal and struck down by the courts. It's only a matter of time that Biden's action is knocked out of the park also. If anyone would like to see consequential, binding changes to immigration law, they should put pressure on their Representatives because the president alone cannot take such action. The president, no matter who it is, cannot use executive action to break current law... The court always catches up. And they have been especially consistent in enforcing the immigration laws as written.
Let's remember, Trump was unable to pass any immigration reform.
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/15/79665852 … t-refugees
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/01 … l-america/I don't buy that for a minute.
They obviously were able to reduce the illegal immigration without any congressional legislation.
They simply had to follow how President Donald Trump was handling the border and there wouldn't have been a problem.
Permitting millions of illegal aliens into the country and all the problems that go with it was intentionally done by the biden/harris administration.
They own it and nobody else.
"Can you address the question though. At this point in time, due to Biden's executive order, statistics show the lowest southwest border encounters in more than three years. "
This raises the question --- Why didn't Biden enact the EO 3 years ago? Why now after millions have been admitted into our nation to await hearings?Well we do know that he sought immigration reform through encouraging Congress to come together and create legislation. He did this his first day in office but we all know Congress was not able to produce anything until the bipartisan bill. I suppose that the executive order could be viewed as the last ditch effort. Most administrations do this, throw a clearly illegal executive order at the immigration issue and hope for the best.
I am not blind to politics either and recognize that the timing can also be viewed as political. True he has enacted an executive order that is questionable in terms of its legality as the clock runs out on his term. It was enacted in June I believe, before he made the decision to drop out of the race. He's getting the results though. He knew he would. Numbers look better during the election season.
When it is eventually invalidated by the courts, Harris as President, may be able to finally persuade Congress to act. Maybe the American people will realize that's what needs to be done, that executive orders in terms of immigration are generally ineffective.
These immigration executive orders are nothing more than kicking the can down the road.
But in the end, if he had enacted this order at any point, it was always going to have a limited shelf life. Realistically, the court probably won't rule on it until after the election and then there will be appeals. The next administration will have to deal with the immigration mess all over again.
I ask anyone, what would you have Biden do? And is it legal?"I ask anyone, what would you have Biden do? And is it legal?"
This statement appears to be a diversion --- "But in the end, if he had enacted this order at any point, it was always going to have a limited shelf life. Realistically, the court probably won't rule on it until after the election and then there will be appeals. The next administration will have to deal with the immigration mess all over again."
Even if that's true, why would anyone vote for someone who helped create the problem and continues to defend how this administration has mishandled the border, making such a mess?
So, I ask you again -- why he didn’t take the actions you’re now giving him credit for. His executive order to try to reduce the number of migrants coming in seems like an afterthought. The bottom line is this: the toughest question to confront is how anyone can defend the enormous numbers of migrants we've seen under this administration.
It’s clear that many in Congress have raised concerns about the Biden immigration bill. I won't detail all the reported issues since they've been widely discussed here, but I do agree that immigration is being used as a political tool.
We are now seeing the consequences of poorly vetted migrants, which extend beyond the financial burden on communities to include crime, and increasingly, gang-related crime. While I understand the statistics suggesting that Americans statistically commit more crimes, the real question is: do we need to add more crime to our society? Migrants should be admitted based on need and thoroughly vetted, but this is a nearly impossible task when many arrive without any documentation to prove their identity.
In my view, the problems we’re facing from this administration's handling of immigration are unacceptable, largely due to what I perceive as poor decision-making or a failure to make wise decisions."Migrants should be admitted based on need and thoroughly vetted, but this is a nearly impossible task when many arrive without any documentation to prove their identity."
But what does immigration law say? Is admitting people based on need a part of our policy? If not, then again I would suggest everyone put pressure on their representatives if this is something they would like to see.
I would also say that in many industries, crucial industries, wouldn't run optimally without migrants. There is an indisputable need.
"the real question is: do we need to add more crime to our society? "
This answer can be found by looking at the crime statistics in cities that absorbed the majority of immigrants over the last 4 years. Has their crime increased?
"His executive order to try to reduce the number of migrants coming in seems like an afterthought"
I see it more as a last ditch effort because Congress was not interested in reforming immigration through legislation.
I don't see Biden as acting any differently than past administrations by throwing executive orders against the wall to see how long the courts will let them stick... Which like all administrations that came before, the orders will be swept away by the courts. Sort of futile and the timing of the order really doesn't matter. He could have done it on day one and it would have been long gone by now. So maybe the timing was strategic? I don't know, to me it doesn't change the very temporary nature of immigration executive orders.
Consequential change will not come to the border through executive order. Just my two cents.
Even if Trump were to win the election, he is working with the same immigration policy (that he cannot change on his own) and the same Congress that is unwilling to produce legislation to change it. Executive orders during his previous administration didn't fare any better when they wound up in court. Why would they next time? Does anyone really believe that mass deportation would sail through the courts? What lasting, legislative changes was Trump enable to make during his term?
"The Trump administration did not fare well in the courts, with major legal setbacks stalling important parts of its agenda, particularly on immigration and deregulation. ".
Federal courts ruled against his administration policies 70 times and that number is from 2019...
"the rulings so far paint a remarkable portrait of a government rushing to implement far-reaching changes in policy without regard for long-standing rules against arbitrary and capricious behavior'.
I wouldn't expect Biden's orders to do any better. His current executive order that tinkers with asylum echoes Trump's effort in 2018 to cut off migration, which the ACLU and other immigrant rights advocates successfully (and very quickly) challenged.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/28/76535736 … portations
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/11/20 … egally-me/
https://www.cliniclegal.org/press-relea … ss-justice
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/r … order.html
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/new … er-blocked
"The "Keep in Mexico" policy under the administration of President Donald Trump was very effective in controlling the southern border".
Let's revisit this and add some facts to it.
In 2023, Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it rejects any effort to reimplement the controversial Trump-era policy known as "remain in Mexico" for asylum-seekers.
"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," the statement said."
So that's that.
But my actual question was in response to a previous members post stating that border agents are currently acting as a "welcoming committee." And others implying that border agents are helping migrants into the country.
I asked and did not receive any response with specifics, that are happening today in terms of what border agents are doing or are directed to do. I did point out current information how Biden's recent executive order has changed the border agents job.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mexico- … d=96939554"In 2023, Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it rejects any effort to reimplement the controversial Trump-era policy known as "remain in Mexico" for asylum-seekers."
Well, it's obvious who was in charge of the border at that time.
I'm sure they'll see things differently when President Donald Trump returns to office.Republicans can not complain about the border with a straight face after abandoning the bill they wanted until Trump decided he would rather campaign on a failed policy instead of seeing something get done. You can't have it both ways, and everybody witnessed what happened. Did he think we would forget?
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … order-bill
"If passed in its current form, the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act would be the most sweeping immigration bill of the twenty-first century. "The border was significantly more secure during the President Donald Trump administration.
They simply had to leave his policies in place.
They didn't and million of illegals came into the country.
This is the responsibility of the biden/harris administration.His policies included separating children from their parents, then losing track of them. Hardly something to be proud of.
And there is still the bill giving the GOP what they wanted that Trump turned down.Actually the policy of separating children from their parents was started under the obama administration. The biden/harris administration has lost over contact with over 85,000 children.
"While H.H.S. checks on all minors by calling them a month after they begin living with their sponsors, data obtained by The Times showed that over the last two years, the agency could not reach more than 85,000 illegal immigrant children," the article read.
"Overall, the agency lost immediate contact with a third of migrant children."
https://www.newsweek.com/under-joe-bide … ng-1812728
And...an interview by CNN explains how it was the biden/harris administration that killed the border bill...NOT President Donald Trump.
"Republican disputes CNN anchor's claim that Trump quashed border bill: 'The Biden administration killed it'
Sen. Markwayne Mullin claimed that Democrats refused to negotiate with Republicans
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., claimed on Friday that the Biden administration was responsible for killing the border security bill, not former President Donald Trump.
During an appearance on CNN, Mullin disputed the idea that Trump publicly and privately attempted to quash the bill before it was even introduced.
Mullin disagreed with anchor Manu Raju, who suggested that Trump lobbied Senate and House members to prevent the bill from passing.
The Oklahoma senator claimed that Trump only became involved after the Biden administration refused to negotiate with Republicans.
"Chuck Schumer didn't one time reach out to Republicans and try to talk to us. They never had a working group together—," Mullin said before he was cut off by Raju.
Raju asked about Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., the lead GOP negotiator for the Senate border security bill. Lankford, in February, urged critics to read the bill, arguing it would create a "faster and stronger system" of deportation and "flip the script" on Biden's immigration policy.
However, he later called for open discussions and criticized Democrats for "politicizing" the bill.
Mullin said that Lankford had also expressed frustration about the bill because Democrats were doing "everything they could to kill it." He also claimed that Democrats had closed discussions on the bill and turned it into a "take it or leave it" scenario.
"What the left media has done, including yourself, they said it's ‘The Lankford Bill.’ It wasn't the Lankford Bill. Lankford was trying to negotiate on behalf of Republicans. The Democrats not one single time tried to actually negotiate with Republicans," he said.
"So, President Trump didn't kill it; the Biden administration killed it because they knew they wanted to try doing something because the administration has been awful on the border, and that hasn't changed," Mullin continued.
In February, Biden claimed Trump was sabotaging the border bill.
"Now, all indications are this bill won't even move forward to the Senate floor. Why? A simple reason: Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump thinks it's bad for him politically," Biden said at the tiime. "So for the last 24 hours, he's done nothing, I'm told, but reach out to Republicans in the House and the Senate and threaten them and try to intimidate them to vote against this proposal. And looks like they're caving."
The White House did not respond to request for comment in time for publication."Mike, I noted this current report on missing unaccompanied children. The number has grown to over 300,000 unaccompanied children. This administration should have never let this many children slip through the cracks. Yet Mayorkas is left in charge. He should have been removed long ago. It would seem some prefer to concentrate on Trump's short policy to separate children from parents at the border than discuss the current ongoing tragedy, of hundreds of children missing.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could not monitor the location and status of all unaccompanied migrant children (UCs) or initiate removal proceedings as needed. During our ongoing audit to assess ICE’s ability to monitor the location and status of UCs who were released or transferred from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), we learned ICE transferred more than 448,000 UCs to HHS from fiscal years 2019 to 2023. However, ICE was not able to account for the location of all UCs who were released by HHS and did not appear as scheduled in immigration court. ICE reported more than 32,000 UCs failed to appear for their immigration court hearings from FYs 2019 to 2023.
Additionally, even though HHS is responsible for the care and custody of UCs, ICE did not always inform HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) when UCs failed to appear in immigration court after release from HHS’ custody. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers
at only one of the eight field offices we visited stated they attempted to locate the UCs. ICE also did not serve a Notice to Appear (NTA) on all UCs, after release from HHS custody, who warranted placement in removal proceedings under 8 U.S. Code Section 1229(a). As of May 2024, ICE had not served NTAs on more than 291,000 UCs who therefore do not yet have an immigration court date.
These issues occurred, in part, because ICE does not have an automated process for sharing information internally between the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) and ERO, and externally with stakeholders, such as HHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ), regarding UCs who do not appear in immigration court.
Additionally, ICE ERO has not developed a formal policy or process to follow up on UCs who did not appear in court has limited oversight for monitoring UCs, and faced resource limitations. ICE must take immediate action to ensure the safety of UCs residing in the United States. Based on our audit work and according to ICE officials, UCs who do not appear for court are considered at higher risk for trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor. Although we identified more than 32,000 UCs who did not appear for their immigration court dates, that number may have been much larger had ICE issued NTAs to the more than 291,000 UCs who were not placed into removal proceedings. By not issuing NTAs to all UCs, ICE limits its chances of having contact with UCs when they are released from HHS’ custody, which reduces opportunities to verify their safety. Without an ability to monitor the location and status of UCs, ICE has no assurance UCs are safe from trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor
I questioned Biden's push to eliminate Title 42, which I always saw as a signal to migrants. The Biden administration eventually achieved their goal when the courts repealed Title 42. Take a look at the chart showing the periods when Title 42 was in effect and when it ended. Can't imagine how many more migrants would have been admitted if 42 was not in place until late 2023. Yet, Biden fought to have it end...
Title 42 was going to end regardless. The courts did let it stay in place as long as they believed it could. Eventually there was no legal justification for its continuance.
Who in his early term went to the courts to have it eliminated? It certainly could have been left in place, ignored... Or renegotiated as a stopgap due to the huge increase in migrant flow to our borders. It was a clear deterrent.
But it couldn't have been left in place. The court spoke clearly and found Title 42 in violation of law and ordered a return to normal immigration law at the border.
Yes, Biden tried to remove the policy sooner. It's a great example of the judicial check on the executive. But even if Biden never challenged 42, others would have and they would have been successful. 42 was a public health law and was always going to have an expiration date. 42 had a time and purpose but I think Immigration issues should, in the long term, be addressed with immigration laws.It's difficult to understand how anyone could be so certain that Article 42 would have been challenged given the significant issues occurring at the border. While I respect your perspective, I believe that Article 42 might have remained in effect due to the escalating problems associated with the large influx of migrants. The situation at the border could have necessitated maintaining Article 42 to manage the increasing numbers and the challenges related to vetting and processing required for migrants to stay in the country. Additionally, concerns about terrorism could have been a compelling reason for keeping Article 42 in place.
I agree that addressing immigration issues requires a long-term strategy. However, I also believe that in times of genuine crisis, we need leadership capable of quickly providing short-term solutions to prevent the situation from worsening. In my view, the Biden administration was ineffective, created foreseeable problems, and struggled to rectify its mistakes. They have used one excuse after another while doing nothing until the eve of an election. This to me is very clear, and very predictable of an administration that floundered for Biden's entire term.
There is a stark contrast between Trump and Biden. Trump was a problem solver who worked around obstacles and implemented stopgap measures to stem the flow of issues. In contrast, Biden largely ignored the problems and offered excuses instead of solutions. From my perspective, this reflects weak leadership versus strong. Trump implemented Title 42, which was effective to a significant degree, whereas Biden quickly moved to cancel it. This decision made little sense and seemed like an open invitation for more migrants to come to our borders."It's difficult to understand how anyone could be so certain that Article 42 would have been challenged given the significant issues occurring at the border"
So the authority for 42 comes from
a 1944 public health law allowing curbs on migration in the name of protecting public health.. Not as a tool to manage immigration.
When the public health emergency for COVID ended, Title 42 ended as well. It served its purpose.
Personally, I couldn't see any Court upholding the use of a public health measure when the health emergency ended.
"I believe that Article 42 might have remained in effect due to the escalating problems associated with the large influx of migrants."
But it's not designed to address any influx of immigrants. Only as related to public health issues.
Just my opinion but lawyers for immigration advocacy groups would have been successful in suing the administration for leaving 42 in place after the PHE expired. There was no longer justification for using 42. The court initially stopped Biden from ending it because the justification was obvious..a declared PHE.
I would also guess that many of Biden's advisors likely told him (or he knew himself) that this attempt to end 42 initially was futile but we have to remember the pressure he was under at the time from progressives on immigration. So maybe the futile attempt placated them? Yeah, that's politics.
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/ … the%20PHE.
Bad decisions have infinite ripple effects. But the problem starts with the bad decision.
I'd like to add a little context to the inspector general's report.
Unaccompanied minor children who cross the U.S. border are subject to specific anti-human trafficking law…. a law that George W. Bush reauthorized in 2008 as well as Trump in 2018… that requires the following before such a person may be deported:
1. They be given a hearing before a judge in which evidence is presented and the judge affirms based on that evidence, that the child is NOT a victim of human trafficking and will not be returned to a threat of human trafficking if deported.
2. The child is assigned an attorney who investigates and finds proof that the child is not a human trafficking victim or in danger of human trafficking in their home country for presentation to the judge.
Again, PER THE LAW (and that law is crystal clear without gray areas), the child may not be deported until the above-described process is complete. And, best case, that process takes months if not years because impoverished countries are not exactly well known for maintaining great birth records; parents living in shantytowns in such countries aren’t typically easy to locate; and, when located, such parents aren’t usually eager to talk to government officials about matters they don’t fully understand in a language they totally don’t understand.
That leaves two options:
1. Children can be warehoused in what are essentially prisons. For safety reasons, such facilities would have to be segregated by age and extensively and closely supervised and, for legal reasons, good food, medical care, and mandatory education would necessarily be part of daily life in such facility. For the children, the costs for such facilities would be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, none of which has been allocated by Congress.
2. The children can be sent to live with relatives who live in the United States at no additional cost until their case can be heard as required by law. And, yes, most of the time, those relatives will be busy working during the day when DHS tries to contact them to check on the children. Let's be clear, the child and sponsor are not required to take or return the call. This loss of contact certainly does not mean they are missing.
The obvious, if also imperfect, choice is No. 2.
Now, are parents in impoverished countries using the law to get their children into the country? That was not the question considered, but almost certainly yes. Lucky for us, the Constitution gives a crystal clear path to correct a law when it has unintended consequences like this: CONGRESS CAN REPEAL OR UPDATE THE LAW. They can literally do it today…. assuming Speaker Mike Johnson is in Washington and doing his job rather than busy grandstanding outside of courthouses in NYC or general schilling for Trump. So the real question about children caught up in the enforcement of the U.S.’s anti human trafficking law, is why isn’t Congress acting to resolve the situation?"1. They be given a hearing before a judge in which evidence is presented and the judge affirms based on that evidence, that the child is NOT a victim of human trafficking and will not be returned to a threat of human trafficking if deported.
2. The child is assigned an attorney who investigates and finds proof that the child is not a human trafficking victim or in danger of human trafficking in their home country for presentation to the judge."
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could not monitor the location and status of all unaccompanied migrant children (UCs) or initiate removal proceedings as needed. During our ongoing audit to assess ICE’s ability to monitor the location and status of UCs who were released or transferred from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), we learned ICE transferred more than 448,000 UCs to HHS from fiscal years 2019 to 2023. However, ICE was not able to account for the location of all UCs who were released by HHS and did not appear as scheduled in immigration court. ICE reported more than 32,000 UCs failed to appear for their immigration court hearings from FYs 2019 to 2023.
The children are lost, and not showing up for their hearings... How does this happen to so many hundreds of children? Not sure if this administration adhered to these laws. Were children even appointed attorneys? If so how did attorneys lose their clients? These questions go unanswered. Facts now show these children are not showing up for hearings. Who's responsible for such a clear mess?"Not sure if this administration adhered to these laws"
I would submit that it is the laws that are the actual problem.
I would also say that this mess has gone on for decades, over several administrations. The law and the processes have not changed.
Sponsors of unaccompanied minors didn't answer the phone during Trump's administration also. They also moved without notifying anyone and failed to show up to court. The fact then, also remains a fact now in that the sponsor assumes responsibility for the care of the child, Including their attendance at court dates.
When they don't show up at court, continuances are often issued. For those who continue to be absent from court, deportation orders are issued. This process has not changed.
The government makes a 30 day check in call to those children or sponsor. The child and sponsor are not required to take or return the call. That does not mean they are lost. HHS in 2018 also testified to such during a senate hearing.
I think we also need to recognize the fact that there has been substantial growth in the number of children arriving without a parent or guardian at the border since 2011.
I thought this was interesting and telling... Robin Dunn Marcos, director of the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement, fielded questions about her office’s ability to ensure the safety of these migrants during a congressional hearing last year.
She told lawmakers that the HHS office’s custodial authority ends once a child is with a sponsor.
Although the agency does try to "maintain contact, it also doesn’t track the location of children post-release, "
Marcos told lawmakers at the time, emphasizing increased coordination with the Labor Department to address problems with child labor.
"She said that the agency would appreciate congressional support in beefing up post-release services at HHS.. LOL
Will Congress get the message? Or are we just going to continue to think that the blame game will solve these problems? Quite honestly, I'm not sure anyone really gives a sh*t about the children. It's more about the talking points.
Let me go back to a senate hearing in 2018...where the following was stated...
"Sponsors are meant to ensure that minors show up at their immigration hearings. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) pressed Wagner (HHS) on why more than half of unaccompanied minors in 2017 did not show up to their immigration hearings. When asked how HHS tracks the missing children, Wagner said that finding out whether children have attended their immigration hearing is not part of its protocol.
“We do not know who is showing up and who isn’t,” he said. “We don’t know those kids … We don’t follow up to ensure they go to the hearing.”
Has anything changed since that time? 2018 sounds a lot like 2024."Sponsors of unaccompanied minors didn't answer the phone during Trump's administration also. They also moved without notifying anyone and failed to show up to court. The fact then, also remains a fact now in that the sponsor assumes responsibility for the care of the child, Including their attendance at court dates."
How can one just assume this?
"Has anything changed since that time? 2018 sounds a lot like 2024."
The numbers... We see a massive number of unaccompanied children that have made their way into the country, and we have lost them. It would seem undefendable, in my view.
The number unaccompanied minors at the border has steadily increased since 2011 but the manner in which we deal with them has not changed.
How can we assume that sponsors didn't answer the phone during Trump's administration? Well we don't have to assume because the protocols were the same...30 day check up calls are nothing more than a courtesy and the sponsor/ child have never been required to take that call or return that call.
Here is a statement from 2018 when Congress was similarly upset about children being "lost"
"As communicated to members of Congress multiple times, these children are not 'lost,'" said HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley. "Their sponsors -- who are usually parents or family members and in all cases have been vetted for criminality and ability to provide for them -- simply did not respond or could not be reached when this voluntary call was made."
And again from 2018...
Steven Wagner, the acting assistant secretary of the agency’s Administration for Children and Families, faced a barrage of questions from senators on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations over why HHS does not track unaccompanied minors who fail to appear at their immigration court hearings. The agency has faced increased scrutiny following a scathing 2016 report from the committee that found it failed to protect unaccompanied minors from traffickers and other abuses.
“It’s just a system that has so many gaps, so many opportunities for these children to fall between the cracks, that we just don’t know what’s going on — how much trafficking or abuse or simply immigration law violations are occurring,” said the committee’s Republican chairman, Sen. Rob Portman. (2018)
Let me add one more source from 2018...
"Trump administration officials acknowledged Thursday that they have no system for tracking the tens of thousands of migrant children who are released from federal custody each year after traveling to the United States alone."
"Cmdr. Jonathan White of the United States Public Health Service, acknowledged that the government stops keeping tabs on a child after a phone call that is made 30 days after he or she is released, even if no one answers."
The laws and procedures have not changed since 2000. The only thing that has changed, is that there has been a steady increase of unaccompanied minors at the border since 2011. So we have the same policies but more children showing up over the years... What could Biden single-handedly do to change the process? Or prevent parents from sending their children to the border unaccompanied?
No matter how many unaccompanied children find their way to the border, they're all going to be met with the same laws and process that existed during the Trump administration and the several before him. If folks are unhappy with that they need to point their energy toward Congress.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/us/t … inors.html
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/arti … ed-minors/
Related Discussions
- 24
Republican mayor supports Kamala Harris
by IslandBites 9 days ago
Why, as a Republican mayor, I support Kamala Harris over TrumpThe time has come for my fellow Arizona Republicans to return to the core foundations of the Grand Old Party.Our party used to stand for the belief that every Arizonan, no matter their background or circumstances, should have the...
- 180
The 2024 Presidential Election
by Scott Belford 9 days ago
I am sure many are going to disagree, but I predict Vice President Kamala Harris will win - by a lot!That is a feeling, not backed up by polling. The polling leans toward he winning - by a little as well as flipping the House and a slim chance of keeping the Senate.
- 44
Harris/Walz first interview. Did it hurt or help their campaign?
by Readmikenow 5 weeks ago
Did anyone see the CNN interview of harris/walz?What was walz doing there in the first place? She is the one running for president and this is her FIRST interview since designated as the democrat nominee for president. He has been referred to as her emotional-support white guy.I thought...
- 18
Does Kamala Harris guarantee a landslide victory for President Trump?
by Stevennix2001 2 months ago
After talking to some of my family members that happen to be conservative, they believe that Biden's pick of Kamala Harris, as his running mate for this year's election, virtually guarantees that not only will Trump win again this year, but he'll do it in a record breaking landslide victory. ...
- 92
Biden Picks Harris For VP
by ga anderson 4 years ago
I think Kamala Harris was his best choice. I think she will probably put him over the top with a lot of swing voters.GA
- 245
The Race for the Democratic Nomination
by PrettyPanther 5 years ago
The field is big (23), the stakes are high (defeat Trump), and the race is long (13 months until the Democratic convention).As a Democratic voter, I am keeping an open mind at this early date. As a political junkie, I am fascinated by the dynamics of who rises to the top and who fades away. Biden's...