Trump is blocking a border deal in the Senate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

No, I don't live in the DMV, but you damn well better believe it impacts me. Maybe not you. Perhaps your kids don't go to a school that has been impacted by an influx of migrant children who don't speak English and some who are illiterate in their home language. Perhaps your neighborhood hasn't been impacted by migrants crowded into single family homes. Perhaps the hospitals in your area haven't been impacted by the migrants seeking medical care on the dime of American taxpayers.

And, let's not forget that we have hundreds of people on the terror watch list streaming across our border. Hopefully, your city won't be impacted by any would-be terrorists coming here to cause destruction.

Don't be naive.

And, no - I will not move. This is my home. My country. Why should Americans MOVE because millions of illegal migrants have invaded? Explain your thinking there.......

Dp- I live in the Midwest and literally none of this is happening near me.
But I do think the border needs help and the republicans are playing politics. Governing is compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

No, I don't live in the DMV, but you damn well better believe it impacts me. Maybe not you. Perhaps your kids don't go to a school that has been impacted by an influx of migrant children who don't speak English and some who are illiterate in their home language. Perhaps your neighborhood hasn't been impacted by migrants crowded into single family homes. Perhaps the hospitals in your area haven't been impacted by the migrants seeking medical care on the dime of American taxpayers.

And, let's not forget that we have hundreds of people on the terror watch list streaming across our border. Hopefully, your city won't be impacted by any would-be terrorists coming here to cause destruction.

Don't be naive.

And, no - I will not move. This is my home. My country. Why should Americans MOVE because millions of illegal migrants have invaded? Explain your thinking there.......

Too bad the GOP’s playing politics with this issue.

Explain how allowing 5000 migrants A DAY to enter illegally is securing our border.

[Anonymous]

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President of the United States broad authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens or place restrictions on the entry of a class of aliens temporarily if he or she determines that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President of the United States broad authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens or place restrictions on the entry of a class of aliens temporarily if he or she determines that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.

Interesting that Biden chooses to take his "broad authority" on some issues.... but not this one, which is a matter of national security.
But, then again, Biden has been wrong on nearly every foreign policy issue in the past 5 decades. And, this is definitely foreign policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is immigration bad? A lot of the people coming here from other places are better than a lot of the people born here.

One thing’s sure for sure. They’re harder workers.

Don’t know yet. Pay Americans proper wages and you may get harder workers.

Keep exploiting migrants and it seems worth it. Legalize these people and you will have to pay them more which then brings us back to paying Americans proper wages. So let’s close the border and skip to the part where we pay people appropriately.

And then you'll be complaining about price hikes.

Well sure but that’s what’s always been at the end of this tunnel. Paying people appropriately whether they are legal migrants with protections or Americans.

You know that if we ‘solve’ this problem, prices will go up.

“Cheap” food/groceries are a myth.

If workers aren’t being paid a living wage, local/state/federal government is going to cover the costs with things like SNAP, medicaid, WIC. Not to mention the plethora of social issues like crime and community investment, loss of social trust, etc… that are directly correlated with poverty.

One way or another, we pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President of the United States broad authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens or place restrictions on the entry of a class of aliens temporarily if he or she determines that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.

Interesting that Biden chooses to take his "broad authority" on some issues.... but not this one, which is a matter of national security.
But, then again, Biden has been wrong on nearly every foreign policy issue in the past 5 decades. And, this is definitely foreign policy.

Only low information MAGAs believe this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President of the United States broad authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens or place restrictions on the entry of a class of aliens temporarily if he or she determines that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.

That's irrelevant. They are already illegally entering. That's not the issue. The issue is the procedure to remove or deport them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President of the United States broad authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens or place restrictions on the entry of a class of aliens temporarily if he or she determines that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.

+1 he could definitely be doing a lot more.

There is an argument to be made that due to court settlements, other laws, etc that tie the executive’s hands… but I don’t see anything mentioned in this proposed bill that would actually change those policies.

And like, I don’t get it? It says that they would “close down illegal entries if there is an average of 5,000 encounters per day over a 2 week span or if any one day hits 8,000 encounters…” but then it adds that “asylum appointments wouldn’t be restricted”

And how exactly does one “close down illegal entries”? Isn’t that essentially what should already be happening?… since you know… they’re not supposed to allow illegal entries?…

“The Department of Homeland Security would be required to shut down illegal crossings if the daily average of encounters surpasses 5,000 migrants or if a one-day total surpasses 8,500. DHS would have the authority to shut the border down at 4,000 encounters per day, however, and Biden has signaled he would aggressively use that authority.

Once the mandatory shutdown is enforced, it would take two weeks of starkly lower illegal crossings (about 2,000) to reopen the border to crossings other than asylum appointments at ports of entry. As a result of high illegal crossing numbers, the border shutdown could continue for weeks or months until the situation numbers go down.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/27/mike-johnson-biden-border-00138222

If “illegal crossings are shut down” why would there continue to be illegal crossings?

This bill, at least as explained by politico, (which has the most details of what is included than I have seen anywhere else) seems like it’s adding a bunch of stuff that doesn’t actually do or change anything?…especially if the president already has the authority to restrict entry of any class of migrant if he deems it would be detrimental to U.S. interests to accept them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

No, I don't live in the DMV, but you damn well better believe it impacts me. Maybe not you. Perhaps your kids don't go to a school that has been impacted by an influx of migrant children who don't speak English and some who are illiterate in their home language. Perhaps your neighborhood hasn't been impacted by migrants crowded into single family homes. Perhaps the hospitals in your area haven't been impacted by the migrants seeking medical care on the dime of American taxpayers.

And, let's not forget that we have hundreds of people on the terror watch list streaming across our border. Hopefully, your city won't be impacted by any would-be terrorists coming here to cause destruction.

Don't be naive.

And, no - I will not move. This is my home. My country. Why should Americans MOVE because millions of illegal migrants have invaded? Explain your thinking there.......

So you’re mad at Trump and the rest of the feckless GOP, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President of the United States broad authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens or place restrictions on the entry of a class of aliens temporarily if he or she determines that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.

Interesting that Biden chooses to take his "broad authority" on some issues.... but not this one, which is a matter of national security.
But, then again, Biden has been wrong on nearly every foreign policy issue in the past 5 decades. And, this is definitely foreign policy.

He hasn’t even rescinded all the executive orders he issued on day one of his presidency, and yet we are supposed to believe he has pivoted on this issue?

https://cmsny.org/biden-immigration-executive-actions/

For example, in 2021 we had a 15k refugee admissions ceiling which he immediately increased to 62,500 and then 125,000, the highest in 30 years. He doesn’t need Congress to do anything to work back the clock on those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

No, I don't live in the DMV, but you damn well better believe it impacts me. Maybe not you. Perhaps your kids don't go to a school that has been impacted by an influx of migrant children who don't speak English and some who are illiterate in their home language. Perhaps your neighborhood hasn't been impacted by migrants crowded into single family homes. Perhaps the hospitals in your area haven't been impacted by the migrants seeking medical care on the dime of American taxpayers.

And, let's not forget that we have hundreds of people on the terror watch list streaming across our border. Hopefully, your city won't be impacted by any would-be terrorists coming here to cause destruction.

Don't be naive.

And, no - I will not move. This is my home. My country. Why should Americans MOVE because millions of illegal migrants have invaded? Explain your thinking there.......

So you’re mad at Trump and the rest of the feckless GOP, correct?

Nope, this is all on Biden and everyone knows it. That’s just one reason his poll numbers are in the ditch. You can’t seriously be blaming someone who isn’t even in office, and not on the party that controls the executive and half the congress? You know, the ones actually in office, and who support sanctuary cities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

No, I don't live in the DMV, but you damn well better believe it impacts me. Maybe not you. Perhaps your kids don't go to a school that has been impacted by an influx of migrant children who don't speak English and some who are illiterate in their home language. Perhaps your neighborhood hasn't been impacted by migrants crowded into single family homes. Perhaps the hospitals in your area haven't been impacted by the migrants seeking medical care on the dime of American taxpayers.

And, let's not forget that we have hundreds of people on the terror watch list streaming across our border. Hopefully, your city won't be impacted by any would-be terrorists coming here to cause destruction.

Don't be naive.

And, no - I will not move. This is my home. My country. Why should Americans MOVE because millions of illegal migrants have invaded? Explain your thinking there.......

So you’re mad at Trump and the rest of the feckless GOP, correct?

Nope, this is all on Biden and everyone knows it. That’s just one reason his poll numbers are in the ditch. You can’t seriously be blaming someone who isn’t even in office, and not on the party that controls the executive and half the congress? You know, the ones actually in office, and who support sanctuary cities?

It’s weird that you’re not mad at him. It’s weird that you won’t acknowledge he’s at fault here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The details of the compromise are scant.

Let me guess, it entails more money for bigger govt to hire more judges to hear cases in order to receive the backlog...


Lol, that ain't no border deal. It does nothing to solve the problem. Dems will never get it through their thick skulls that MORAL HAZARD matters. More judges and a bigger administrative state will just encourage more to come. You never addressed the root of the problem. Reject any deal calling for money for bigger administrative state. It solves nothing.

There you go, moving the goalposts. McConnell told his caucus this was The Best deal there were ever going to get. Biden gave them almost everything they wanted but MAGA Republicans need red meat for their base so they aren’t going to pass it. What’s Ironic is GOP now won’t have ANY accomplishments to run on. But then again, no one expects MAGA Republicans to actually govern.

Fox News is already lining up those “immigrant caravans”.

Yup, it’s definitely Fox News doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a problem for the GOP and Lankford knows it.

Yup

Nope. Biden has f'ed up the border and we have seen the ramifications for 3 years now.
A really bad "deal" that is rejected by reasonable people in an election year ain't gonna change that.

It's not a bad deal. It's a compromise. And lbh, the only reason it's being objected to is so Biden won't get any "win" leading up to an election. You're as transparent as cellophane.

Do you live in DMV? Because, I'd love to know the "ramifications" of the border on you? I've seen nothing of these significant ramifications you speak of. And if those are felt at the border, I'll trot out the old GOP line: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and/or move if you don't like your situation.

No, I don't live in the DMV, but you damn well better believe it impacts me. Maybe not you. Perhaps your kids don't go to a school that has been impacted by an influx of migrant children who don't speak English and some who are illiterate in their home language. Perhaps your neighborhood hasn't been impacted by migrants crowded into single family homes. Perhaps the hospitals in your area haven't been impacted by the migrants seeking medical care on the dime of American taxpayers.

And, let's not forget that we have hundreds of people on the terror watch list streaming across our border. Hopefully, your city won't be impacted by any would-be terrorists coming here to cause destruction.

Don't be naive.

And, no - I will not move. This is my home. My country. Why should Americans MOVE because millions of illegal migrants have invaded? Explain your thinking there.......

So you’re mad at Trump and the rest of the feckless GOP, correct?

Nope, this is all on Biden and everyone knows it. That’s just one reason his poll numbers are in the ditch. You can’t seriously be blaming someone who isn’t even in office, and not on the party that controls the executive and half the congress? You know, the ones actually in office, and who support sanctuary cities?

It’s weird that you’re not mad at him. It’s weird that you won’t acknowledge he’s at fault here.

I’m not sure there’s a person in America not mad at Biden. Look at his polls!

[Anonymous]