Millions of Illegal Aliens From All Over The World Head For U.S. Border

#7,476
#7,476
lawgator1 said:
It's a Republican drafted bill.

Funny how that works.
Click to expand...
HR 2 is a Republican drafted bill. This one isn't. Can you see the difference?

Who initiated this border bill?

The Senate is a Dem controlled body right now. You're insulting our intelligence by factually stating that this is a Republican bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, UT_Dutchman, davethevol and 1 other person
#7,478
#7,478
RockyTop85 said:
Goalpost moving? By referencing the original post? So you tried to move the goalposts and now you’re mad that I made you put them back? 🤡

If by “fix” you mean “completely resolve” then I’ve never claimed that, have tacitly admitted that it does not, and have no problem acknowledging that it does not.

If by “fix” you mean “improve,” then yes I already started addressing that. If it were actually important to you, you’d go back and see what I said, like I did, instead of childishly denying that I said anything.
Click to expand...

Where's your outrage on Shumer refusing to even allow HR 2 to go to committee? I must have missed your musings on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, InVOLuntary, davethevol and 3 others
#7,480
#7,480
Sea Ray said:
Where does it say Mexico must cooperate? This is what I see:



I don't see that we need Mexico's permission.
Click to expand...
So you didn’t know what the policy was actually doing, but you’re sure we don’t need Mexico’s permission to send people back across the border.

I said this before, but it bears repeating: What I’m learning is that this isn’t a big enough issue for you guys to have bothered to properly understand it.
 
#7,481
#7,481
The partisanship in this in incredible. The House passed the Secure the Border Act of 2023 all the way back in May. So there we were ready to address the border? Nope. The "other" side didn't want it as, we can only assume, they didn't agree to the terms. Of particular note is there are no stipulations to large sums of money leaving the country. Apparently not agreeing to what is contained in the bill is sufficient enough reason and widespread histrionics never materialized. Of course there really wasn't, nor even had there been, a real border crisis anyway twas said.

Now there is another offer on the table from the "other" other side that their other side doesn't want as, we can only assume, they don't agree to the terms. Of particular note is there are stipulations to large sums of money leaving the country. In great contrast apparently not agreeing with what is contained in this bill is entirely insufficient and widespread histrionics is everywhere you look. This is because of course there is, and has been, a real border crises that needs addressing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, LouderVol and MemphisVol77
#7,482
#7,482
RockyTop85 said:
So you didn’t know what the policy was actually doing, but you’re sure we don’t need Mexico’s permission to send people back across the border.

I said this before, but it bears repeating: What I’m learning is that this isn’t a big enough issue for you guys to have bothered to properly understand it.
Click to expand...
Argue with CBS News rather than me:

Mr. Biden has the legal authority to reinstate the border policies implemented by former President Donald Trump that he ended, since they were based on proclamations, regulations and international agreements.

Those now-defunct Trump policies include agreements that allowed the U.S. to reroute asylum-seekers to third countries and the "Remain in Mexico" program, which required migrants to await their asylum hearings outside of the U.S. Federal law allows officials to return asylum-seekers to Mexico, but it does not require it, as decreed by the Supreme Court in 2022.
Click to expand...

www.cbsnews.com

Could Biden "shut down" the border now? What to know about the latest immigration debate

Here are the facts about what President Biden can do now legally at the border and what he can't do, at least without congressional intervention.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
#7,483
#7,483
hndog609 said:
The partisanship in this in incredible. The House passed the Secure the Border Act of 2023 all the way back in May. So there we were ready to address the border? Nope. The "other" side didn't want it as, we can only assume, they didn't agree to the terms. Of particular note is there are no stipulations to large sums of money leaving the country. Apparently not agreeing to what is contained in the bill is sufficient enough reason and widespread histrionics never materialized. Of course there really wasn't, nor even had there been, a real border crisis anyway twas said.

Now there is another offer on the table from the "other" other side that their other side doesn't want as, we can only assume, they don't agree to the terms. Of particular note is there are stipulations to large sums of money leaving the country. In great contrast apparently not agreeing with what is contained in this bill is entirely insufficient and widespread histrionics is everywhere you look. This is because of course there is, and has been, a real border crises that needs addressing.
Click to expand...

But per our resident lawyers only one side is blocking immigration/asylum reform and border security for political reasons.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, MemphisVol77 and whodeycin85
#7,484
#7,484
RockyTop85 said:
Asylum is currently the biggest hole in the border.

Anybody who steps foot on US Soil needs only to be able to speak one single English sentence and, by law, they must be processed through the asylum system. Congress is needed to change the asylum system. The president cannot.

Once in the asylum system, migrants must (by law) be paroled into the country or detained. Detention must be funded by congress. It is not.

The current asylum system is slow. Resources would need to be allocated to speed it up. Congress handles those allocations.

Currently, by law, the options for expediting the removal of those who claim asylum is basically nil. Must be expanded by congress. The current bill changes that, last I heard.

Remain in Mexico cannot just be unilaterally reinstated because Mexico will no longer agree to it because of the problems it caused for them.

Title 42’s health justification (Covid) is gone. It has been enjoined.

Current law (again, congress) is very forgiving of initial attempts to cross the border unlawfully. Last I heard, this law adjusts that somewhat.
Click to expand...

Interesting take. That tells us all what we need to know about allowing millions of law breaking below educated illegals into the country.
 
#7,486
#7,486
hog88 said:
I’m definitely not a hack, but I need to find another way to make this conversation about blaming democrats to continue to validate my political beliefs, because my original reason turned out to be incorrect.
Click to expand...
FYP.

I can’t remember being outraged about even the senate bill not getting a vote, so I’m not sure what point you think you’re making. Even if I were so inclined, I’m not too stupid to distinguish between a bill with no input from the minority party and a bill with bipartisan co-authors and bipartisan support that would likely pass if put to a vote.

Immigration has been in the news enough that I’ve made efforts to understand it, so apparently it is a bigger issue for me than for most on here, but not something I get outraged about, unless outrageous things are done in the name of immigration policy.

Those that are easily outraged can certainly rage at democrats. The last time we had one of these compromise bills that had a real shot, Obama essentially killed it with the DACA XO; I blame him for that, others should too. Biden is responsible for ending remain in Mexico, which was being applied to about 5% of encounters at the border; so people who believe we should accept imperfect, incremental solutions can rage at him. But I really dislike Schumer and I’m sure he’s not blameless, I just don’t have a reason at hand, so rage at him too.

I don’t even care if you aren’t outraged at Johnson for failing to hold a vote on a bipartisan senate bill that would likely pass if it reached the floor. Even if you had put in the effort to understand that legislation was necessary, you still might not have supported this particular bill for perfectly valid reasons that have nothing to do with your primary concern of blaming Democrats over Republicans.
 
#7,487
#7,487
BreatheUT said:
Interesting take. That tells us all what we need to know about allowing millions of law breaking below educated illegals into the country.
Click to expand...
Getting onto US soil and saying you have a credible fear of returning to your country of origin is literally following US law. It’s legal up to a certain point. That you can read the post claim to care about the issue and fail to comprehend that is discrediting.
 
#7,488
#7,488
RockyTop85 said:
How is it “bad legislation?” Trump’s opposition to it is that it would be a win for Biden.

It does fix some of the problems, and I did address at least two of the fixes in my first post in this thread.
Click to expand...

The foreign capital outlays notwithstanding, one of my bigger questions concerns the provision that purportedly vests in the Executive the power to set aside the changes if “It is in the National Interest”.

Are you familiar with it? What do you make of it?
 
#7,489
#7,489
Sea Ray said:
Argue with CBS News rather than me:



www.cbsnews.com

Could Biden "shut down" the border now? What to know about the latest immigration debate

Here are the facts about what President Biden can do now legally at the border and what he can't do, at least without congressional intervention.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...
The article says they were based on agreements with foreign countries and I already posted the link to the press release from Mexico’s foreign ministry that they no longer agree. Not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here other than prove that you don’t understand this issue or foreign policy. Mission accomplished in both regards.
 
#7,491
#7,491
February 1, 2021: Biden's Department of Homeland Security requires a "process that shall provide for assessments of alternatives to removal including, but not limited to, staying or reopening cases, alternative forms of detention, whether to grant temporary deferred action, or other appropriate action." It's another means to allow foreign law-breakers to remain inside the United States indefinitely.
 
#7,492
#7,492
85SugarVol said:
The foreign capital outlays notwithstanding, one of my bigger questions concerns the provision that purportedly vests in the Executive the power to set aside the changes if “It is in the National Interest”.

Are you familiar with it? What do you make of it?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the bill allows the executive to use his judgment to respond to the ebb and flow of immigration and empowers him with certain tools to do so. So congress wouldn’t be saying “henceforth forever and ever this shall be the immigration policy and border procedure of the US until the president changes it and then we will need to act again to reinstate these measures.” I think they’re saying “here are situations that create exceptions to some existing law and here’s what you can do, but don’t have to do, in those situations?”

Are we talking about the same thing?

I’m generally in favor of doing more by legislation and less by executive action but I’m also not sure if there is a way to rewrite the statutes that addresses this until congress can get around to it again. But maybe that’s the lazy way of thinking that creates a dysfunctional congress and a supercharged executive in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#7,493
#7,493
February 2, 2021: Biden signals the END to REMAIN IN MEXICO policy that kept would-be illegal aliens in Mexico while their usually false asylum claims were adjudicated in U.S. courts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#7,495
#7,495
February 6, 2021: The Biden administration begins to terminate agreements for other countries to hold migrants making asylum claims.

The Biden administration stopped refusing to admit illegal migrant children under Title 42.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#7,496
#7,496
RockyTop85 said:
As far as I know, the bill allows the executive to use his judgment to respond to the ebb and flow of immigration and empowers him with certain tools to do so. So congress wouldn’t be saying “henceforth forever and ever this shall be the immigration policy and border procedure of the US until the president changes it and then we will need to act again to reinstate these measures.” I think they’re saying “here are situations that create exceptions to some existing law and here’s what you can do, but don’t have to do, in those situations?”

Are we talking about the same thing?

I’m generally in favor of doing more by legislation and less by executive action but I’m also not sure if there is a way to rewrite the statutes that addresses this until congress can get around to it again. But maybe that’s the lazy way of thinking that creates a dysfunctional congress and a supercharged executive in the first place.
Click to expand...
There are thresholds (the much talked about “5,000” sounds like) that would trigger a border closure.

This seems to indicate that the Executive could suspend a border closure for 45 days at a time? If it’s in the national interest. Seems like that could be anything.

the bill would give the president the power to suspend a border closure “on an emergency basis for up to 45 days if it is in the national interest.”

news.yahoo.com

Senators unveil bipartisan bill to impose tougher asylum and border laws

Senators released a new, bipartisan immigration bill, seeking to reduce record-high border crossings and tighten the asylum system.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
#7,498
#7,498
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and Franklin Pierce
#7,499
#7,499
85SugarVol said:
There are thresholds (the much talked about “5,000” sounds like) that would trigger a border closure.

This seems to indicate that the Executive could suspend a border closure for 45 days at a time? If it’s in the national interest. Seems like that could be anything.

the bill would give the president the power to suspend a border closure “on an emergency basis for up to 45 days if it is in the national interest.”

news.yahoo.com

Senators unveil bipartisan bill to impose tougher asylum and border laws

Senators released a new, bipartisan immigration bill, seeking to reduce record-high border crossings and tighten the asylum system.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think it’s just a way of leaving it to the discretion of the executive.

Hypothetically, if a country, we’ll call them Hermany, started exterminating an ethnic or religious group, let’s call them Yews, and those Yews started fleeing the country and filing clearly meritorious asylum claims in the US, congress may not wish for people abusing the system to result in an inability to process meritorious claims.
 
#7,500
#7,500
RockyTop85 said:
The article says they were based on agreements with foreign countries and I already posted the link to the press release from Mexico’s foreign ministry that they no longer agree. Not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here other than prove that you don’t understand this issue or foreign policy. Mission accomplished in both regards.
Click to expand...
I stated exactly what I meant and you've ignored it. The article states that Biden could reinstate Trump policies. I gave you the quote. If you're going to turn that into a personal insult game, I'm not interested. I can't spoon feed you this any further. You insist on making it personal.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top