Here is what I dont understand. I will agree he was slow to
by wpkirish (2024-02-26 19:18:59)

In reply to: I think Trump's terrible as noted in my two posts above.  posted by manofdillon


act. However, once he did act he agreed to much of what the Republicans wanted and did not even demand anything for dreamers. The immigration items they asked for will actually help speeed up the asylum process. In return they asked for aid to Ukraine. Israel and relief funds for Gaza.

In other words they acted like any administration in the last 200 years. Republicans then blew up the deal. The Speaker has now flipped his position on the Biden's authority to unilaterally solve the border.

As Adam Kinzinger wrote in the piece I linked before the current version of the Republican party is not a serious political party that is interested in governing it is a party interested in power.

https://adamkinzinger.substack.com/p/the-gop-is-not-serious-about-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1910658&post_id=141201339&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=nufly&utm_medium=email


I agree.
by manofdillon  (2024-02-26 19:56:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Biden waited too long and let the problem become a crisis. But Republican are not serious or good faith actors.


And lied about it not being a crisis for 3.5 years and
by krudler  (2024-02-27 12:11:26)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

had his messengers (some on this board) repeat the lie.


To me, the allowance for up to 5k per day is a nonstarter.
by krudler  (2024-02-26 19:47:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I have not seen any real analysis that suggests we can absorb >1.8M additional illegals per year, and the problems we're seeing today based on a fraction of that amount being sent by the administration and Texas to some of our larger cities supports that. I honestly think reinstating the remain in Mexico policy is the right thing to do (it seems Biden is contemplating that), as it's clear a large majority of the people are not seeking true asylum, but just better opportunities. I do have a soul and can sympathize with them, but we're having real and significant issues absorbing this level of mass migration.


Great, so we got nothing but the status quo
by sprack  (2024-02-26 20:52:08)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Once upon a time in this country we had the concept of "compromise" to get things done.


Which status quo specifically? The one Biden inherited
by krudler  (2024-02-27 12:00:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Day 1 or the status quo after he rescinded dozens of executive orders that horribly exacerbated the problem? To play this game where this was just a mess Biden inherited at this point is either intellectually dishonest or lazy. He specifically said he wanted these people to "surge to the border", then made it so they could all get in by rescinding remain in Mexico, then had his administration lie for years that there was no real crisis. He had control of the legislative branch for a couple years but didn't change anything, but certainly rescinded any EAs that made it less chaotic. Also the vast majority of busing or "planing" of migrants has been executed by the federal government, not Texas or other states.

And again, where is the analysis that we can absorb another 1.8M people per year in addition to the legal immigration we have?


Can we stop with the 'illegals talk'?
by Kali4niaND  (2024-02-26 19:58:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Asking for asylum is a legal process. While the numbers are certainly a problem, individuals requesting asylum are decidedly not 'illegals'. While some people may be crossing the border illegally, most of the problem is with a broken asylum process that doesn't allow us to remediate asylum claims quickly enough.


No, we can't and I won't. Words have meaning. Asylum
by krudler  (2024-02-27 12:01:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

is very specific, and has very specific conditions. We have seen from the data that the majority of the illegals who even bother to show up at their court hearings are not here for real asylum, just better economic opportunities, thus illegals.


Don't you live in Michigan?
by ACross  (2024-02-27 16:09:57)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Are Canucks pouring across the bridge from Windsor?


No we can’t. 80% are bogus claims and illegal clowns (link)
by airborneirish  (2024-02-27 09:59:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


the article refutes the headline
by DBCooper  (2024-02-27 11:52:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Asylum has been granted in about 40% of the nearly 700,000 asylum cases that have been decided since 2000. Immigration judges in that time frame approved about 30% of the applications, or about 420,000 cases, filed by people in deportation proceedings after arriving at the border or after being apprehended within the U.S.

In fiscal year 2022, immigration judges decided 52,000 asylum cases; about 46% of people were granted asylum. The approval rate was closer to 39% for those who applied for asylum as a defense against deportation.

"I acknowledge that I misspoke. The number is closer to 30% or higher," Johnson told PolitiFact.

It’s important to note that just because people are not granted asylum does not mean they do not have a valid claim. Experts have previously told PolitiFact that cases can be denied because of procedural reasons, or because immigrants don’t have legal representation and aren’t able to effectively argue their case.

me: So its more like 40-50%. Certainly doesnt ruin your overall point Im sure. I think the worst part is that it takes 6 fucking years to process a claim. Thats nuts!


You understand though that asking for asylum is what
by Inigomontoya  (2024-02-26 20:10:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

everyone is doing that is crossing from the southern border. The vast majority are leaving their countries for the social services and economic opportunity in the US. These aren’t defectors from the former communist bloc countries.

The vast majority of these people aren’t leaving their countries because of political persecution.

It is massive migration of people leaving 3rd world countries for social services and economic benefits because they know when they get to the border they will not be denied entry.


How was killing the Senate bill helpful on that score? *
by sprack  (2024-02-26 20:56:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


A process that would allow entry for
by Inigomontoya  (2024-02-26 21:24:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

“Asylum” seekers and just work thru a process doesn’t sound great to me.

3.5 years into Biden’s term he’s trying to do something (and I don’t think a good plan) after saying there was no problem, crossings claimed to be low, that really doesn’t sit well with me.

Biden and his administration has been playing a much more damaging game with their border policy in my opinion.


Isn’t that what we’ve been doing forever?
by Kali4niaND  (2024-02-26 22:13:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Apply for asylum and have your claim adjudicated. That’s how the process has always worked, I think.

The problem is that the number of asylum seekers has outstripped our ability to handle the volume.


Why has that volume increased? When they were previously
by Inigomontoya  (2024-02-26 22:43:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Interred there were screams of abuse. When Texas was trying to stop the influx the Biden administration interfered.


Simple. While campaigning Biden made a series of
by krudler  (2024-02-27 12:15:09)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

very public statements encouraging illegal immigration, and then backed that up by rescinding a number of EAs that made things less chaotic, and then actively interfered with essentially any measures the states took to counteract the chaos. All while telling us to not believe our lying eyes about the crisis unfolding. Truly Orwellian.


Why did it increase under Trump? *
by wpkirish  (2024-02-27 12:43:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


It increased one year under Trump, then got
by krudler  (2024-02-27 12:48:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

back down to or below historical averages. Biden then proceeded to undo all the EAs that were helping to keep it trending down Day 1, then lied about the border for the last 3 years. The levels it has achieved under Biden are not even comparable to what we saw under Obama or Trump. Also one of the few things Trump didn't lie about was a crisis at our border.


So,you prefer brutish treatment of asylum seekers?
by Kali4niaND  (2024-02-27 09:40:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I'm no expert, but I believe Covid certainly made conditions worse in the Central American triangle, while also suppressing migratory behavior pre-2021. We have upheaval in Venezuela and the middle east. People are looking for safe havens to raise their families.

Can we take them all? No. A compassionate response to their travails should be a thorough vetting at the border, with non-asylum seekers being sent home, and an expedited asylum process so legitimate candidates can be accommodated, up to our capacity to handle them.

Not barbed wire in the Rio Grande.


I guess that’s where we fundamentally disagree. There are no
by Inigomontoya  (2024-02-27 10:23:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

“non-asylum” seekers. No is showing up and saying I just want to join my extended family in the US get a job. Just check the asylum box.

The solution of show up at the border and/or cross illegally, request “asylum” and then be allowed to stay effectively indefinitely is simply a terrible process and is no solution.






Again, without it you get the status quo
by sprack  (2024-02-26 21:31:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Which is worse?

I don't think people quite understand how the bill went way beyond any concessions the Democrats agreed to in the past, and likely they won't give in the future.

Yet another example of insisting on perfection and getting nothing because of it. And in the bargain Putin might roll over Ukraine.

Great, just great.


Again, which status quo? The one Biden inherited or
by krudler  (2024-02-27 12:10:18)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

the one he created with his EAs? Also how is accepting 1.8M more people (in addition to the legal immigration we have every year) sustainable? Would be good to see that analysis. This is a nonstarter and Biden knew it.


WTF difference does it make?
by sprack  (2024-02-27 16:13:57)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Do you want any kind of solution or not? It was right there for the taking.


Yes and changing that requires an Act of Congress at least
by wpkirish  (2024-02-26 20:55:20)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

in this bill there was / is money for lawyers and judges to speed up the processing of claims.

I think a recognition of the fact that is who most of the people crossing are would lead to a better opportunities to deal with the problem.