lawgator1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 72,067
- Likes
- 42,588
lets say you have an area that doesn't have good security. like a mall. you have some guards but they just sit in the security room, and there are lots of security issues that happen because of it. some people want a full security overhaul. others want even less security. so you "compromise" by getting more security guards, but require them to also only sit in the security room.
did you really compromise? is the mall any more secure just because there are more guards taking the same amount of action as the old guards?
That is a terrible analogy as the bipartisan bill, which was set to pass as of a Saturday, until Trump killed it on Sunday, would not have put guards in a room.
It would have:
* Added 1500 new customs and border personnel
* Added 4300 asylum officers, up from just 1,000, making that process faster. Critical component even for the right because as it it takes 5 to 7 years to adjudicate them based on lack of manpower.
* Increased the number of beds to be used by ICE from 40,000 to 90,000. Again, critical, because so many immigrants get released as there is nowhere to house them for that long wait on their asylum claim.
* Increase by 100 the number of actual judges to hear asylum claims.
* Add 100 fentanyl-detection devices at the border.
Not perfect you say? I agree. But a step forward, nonethless. Better than no action.
But Trumplestilskin couldn't have that occur on Biden's watch.