╌>

Man of the moment

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  77 comments

Man of the moment
“I’ve seen enough. This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created. As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes.” If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival,” Johnson said in a statement on X, echoing comments he made before the bill's release.

Link to quote: 'Even worse than we expected': House speaker reacts to bipartisan Senate immigration bill - ABC News (go.com)


Biden's gambit on aid to certain allies has now reached its climax. I guess the blame goes to Biden's handlers who crafted a request for aid that combined substantial aid to Ukraine and some aid to Israel with US border security. House Republicans were quick to try and corner Biden with real border security in return for the aid he requested. Chuck Schumer the Senate "majority leader" (barely), has turned that back on Republicans by getting moderate Republican Senators to contribute to a bill that basically accepts the premise of mass migration. 

That leaves the House Speaker with a tough decision. If he were to accept the compromise Senate Bill, Biden would get his aid money, and nothing would really change on the border. Johnson might even be risking his position as Speaker. On the other hand, if Johnson does what he said he would and either table or get his members to vote against the Senate Bill, the democrats will try to use it as proof the Republicans really don't want to fix the border crisis. As crazy as that would seem, the dishonest media would try to sell it from now to election day.

Oddly enough the Border Patrol Union has given its endorsement to the Senate Bill simply because it seems to be better than the unending chaos on the border that now overwhelms them. 

"House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the legislation, which includes millions of dollars in new foreign aid and is the first major overhaul of the country's immigration system in years, will not even receive a vote in the House.

“Let me be clear: The Senate Border Bill will NOT receive a vote in the House. Here’s what the people pushing this “deal” aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day and gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients—a magnet for more illegal immigration,” Scalise said in a statement on X."

'Even worse than we expected': House speaker reacts to bipartisan Senate immigration bill - ABC News (go.com)



It appears that Johnson will have the full support of House Republicans in defeating the Senate Bill, but I do have a suggestion for Johnson:

Take HR 2 " The Secure Border Act of 2023 " and attach it to the Biden request for aid and send that over to the Senate. That will take the talking points away from democrats. Let Schumer table that if he wants. HR 2 is the comprehensive immigration reform the country needs.



In other news:

Migrant manhunt: There is now a nationwide search for the illegal migrants who attacked NYC police officers and were released by Alvin Bragg. A few of them have been captured in Arizona.

Iran proxies are continuing their attacks on US bases.

There have been contradictory statements coming from the government on whether Iraq was warned of the US strikes before they were launched.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has overruled a state parole board decision to release a man who killed a minister and shot a deputy after they found him drunk and drove him home in 1994.  (drudge report.)

Today may be impeachment time for the radical HS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.




Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Good morning

FuuUsm5XoAAMJsL?format=jpg&name=small

"We will not pass immigration legislation that further incentivizes illegal immigration, does not reform asylum and parole in a meaningful way, and empowers President Biden and his cabinet, the architects of this catastrophe." ...Speaker Mike Johnson

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
1.1  George  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

Who wouldn't be onboard with allowing 1,825,000 invaders into the country before you start turning them back. and that only counts the ones you catch.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  George @1.1    3 weeks ago

As any American Marxist would say: "demography is destiny."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

That sounds like code for acceptance of the great replacement theory. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

It is not code. That is the steadfast belief of the American left. It is only called "replacement theory" when a Conservative says it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
That sounds like code for acceptance of the great replacement theory. 

Fluff. Imaginary fluff.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 weeks ago
It is not code.

Secret codes, Russian conspiracy theories, what won't some fall for?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

The border was opened deliberately.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

I know, Biden invited them to come.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

Sounds like Democrats not fixing their damn mess, again!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
That sounds like code

That sounds like conspiracy theory.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
That sounds like code

I wonder where all the knowledge of these secret codes is coming from.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    3 weeks ago

Same place they hear US is a racist society that must be brought down.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2  Ronin2    3 weeks ago
There have been contradictory statements coming from the government on whether Iraq was warned of the US strikes before they were launched.

The only reason US troops are still in Iraq are to protect British and French oil interests. They can do that on their own. We should have pulled out as soon as ISIS/ISIL was no longer a tangible threat in Iraq. 

The Iraqi government is loyal to Iran; and has basically made the country a satellite of Iran to funnel militias and arms into Syria and Lebanon. 

This isn't the first time the US has been at loggerheads with the Iraqi government- but it needs to be the last. 

Protect our troops- they don't need to be sitting targets for Iran and their proxies.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago

It is a tough decision. I think we should get the Europeans to replace us in the ME.

Our military presence should be totally directed towards the Pacific theatre.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago

That would make sense; but since when has our foreign policy ever made sense. It may have it's moments- but they are fleeting; and few and far between.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3  Just Jim NC TttH    3 weeks ago

Not only that but look what would happen to Texas...........

Texas Governor  Greg Abbott  has responded with fury to a provision in the new bipartisan  Senate  border security bill that would block the state of Texas from challenging some of its provisions via the local federal court. The bill sets out the circumstances under which suspected illegal immigrants can request a judicial review of their deportation orders, stating: "The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have sole and original jurisdiction to hear challenges, whether constitutional or otherwise, to the validity of this section or any written policy directive, written policy guideline, written procedure, or the implementation thereof."

Sneaky bastards................

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago

That's right. Jim, you get the A+ today.

The border would be under the purview of the ultra-radical DC District Court.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago

Pelosi was right. We DO need to read what's in the bill so we can ALL see what's in it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Nikki Haley supports the border “compromise” bill.

GFlPq3lWMAAE08m?format=jpg&name=small

And she is running to be the GOP nominee !

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    3 weeks ago

Well shit.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1    3 weeks ago

She might be the democrat's alternative to Biden!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    3 weeks ago

 Very  on brand 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
4.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    3 weeks ago
Nikki Haley supports the border “compromise” bill.

Nikki Haley has been a neoliberal, following in the footsteps of Reagan Republicans.  IMO Haley would still be a much, much better choice than Joe Biden.  And, personally, I could accept Haley as President instead of Trump.  Trump has drifted off track and there is a danger of reviving Tom DeLay and Phil Graham phony Libertarian crap.  Trump really has become dangerous.

Reviving Republican neoliberalism wouldn't be ideal.  But that is a far better alternative than Obama's neoliberalism that Biden is pursuing.  People don't seem to recognize that Clinton turned Democrats into Reagan neoliberals.  Obama replaced Reagan in the Democrat ideology.  The significance is that Democrats are not going to give up neoliberalism.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

The fact is that the House Republicans and America's MAGA reject the very concept of compromise. Legislative compromise is the backbone of a two party political system. 

The right wing media has been in near hysteria about terrorists coming over the border on a constant if not daily basis, claiming that Biden was willing to let Americans die from terrorist attacks rather than act at the border.

Now, in a twist of fate, the Republicans own the threat of terrorist attacks from the southern border. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

That is going to be a tough sell, John.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    3 weeks ago

Tell that to the dead Americans who are the victim of any terrorist attacks between now and next January. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

Joe let everyone of them in.  For 3 years!

It is squarely on him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    3 weeks ago
Tell that to the dead Americans who are the victim of any terrorist attacks between now and next January

Why don't you tell some homeless Americans that they aren't as important to the Democratic Party as a bunch of immigrants are.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.4  charger 383  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

So, you agree terrorists have been crossing te border?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
5.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.4    3 weeks ago
So, you agree terrorists have been crossing te border?

Of course not, they all waited until today to start. S/

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

How about we wait a while until Democrats get serious about border security?

We waited 3 long years for Biden to do absolutely NOTHING, so a year longer with Biden at the helm isn't going to matter much anyway. 

Before bemoaning the GOP reluctance to trust Democrats on the border and immigration (with GREAT reasons) why not take 5 minutes to bitch about the uncooperative Democrats?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.3  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

Your partisanship is again showing. The border and immigration issues have been around for how long now?  It's been several decades since any real meaningful action has been taken. During that window there have been times when Republicans held Congress and the White House, there have also been times when Democrats held Congress and the WH. Nobody has done a damn thing when they were in control.

Why is that? Because Washington doesn't want to solve the issue, they want to keep it as a cudgel to beat up the other side. Partisan politics in play here. And you are falling for it. 

Now, in a twist of fate, the Republicans own the threat of terrorist attacks from the southern border. 

How many on the suspected terrorist watch list have come over the border since Biden took office and immediately issued EO's to reverse Trump policies? And even if the House were to pass this Senate bill without modifications and was immediately signed by Biden, how many years would it take before any new bodies were available for security of the border?

No, I suggest to stop playing the partisan game and put the blame directly where it belongs. On Washington.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.3    3 weeks ago
According to the web search results, the  Republican Party  rejected the 2012 immigration reform bill. The bill, also known as the  McCain-Kennedy bill , was drafted by Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy and would have provided a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. However, the bill faced strong opposition from many Republicans in the House of Representatives, who refused to bring it to the floor for a vote. The bill also faced criticism from some Democrats and immigration advocates, who argued that it was too restrictive or did not address the root causes of migration.  The bill ultimately failed to pass Congress and was never signed into law 1 2 3

-

2013  — With President Barack Obama in the White House, a bipartisan group of senators, nicknamed the  Gang of 8 , negotiated an immigration reform bill that was approved in the Senate. The bill included a path to legal status and eventual citizenship, and it established “goals,” such as putting up 700 miles of border fencing and getting an employment verification system up and running before people who were in the country illegally could apply for legalization. It also would have added as many as 40,000 Border Patrol agents. A less celebrated bipartisan  group of eight members  was working on a bill in the House, but it disintegrated without having introduced a bill. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced that there would be no movement on immigration.

A timeline of Congress’ immigration failures as Title 42 expires (nbcnews.com)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.3    3 weeks ago

I agree that both sides have some culpability for why immigration reform has not been passed, but when push has come to shove it has been the Republicans who have balked. They reject the idea of demographic change in America. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.3.3  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.2    3 weeks ago

You seem to completely forget the Immigration Control and Reform Act signed in 1986 by President Reagan. 

Instead, he said, the problem lies in how the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986 was implemented. He described the passage of the bill as something of a “con-job” that allowed millions of immigrants in the country illegally to have legal status with a promise of workplace enforcement and other measures to curb future illegal immigration.

But that didn’t happen, he said. And there was little incentive to follow through on promises of strict workplace enforcement, he said, once millions of people were legalized.

Today’s immigration debate rooted in ‘Reagan amnesty,’ experts say | PBS NewsHour

President Reagan cut a deal with Democrats to sign the act with their promise they would follow up on workplace enforcement yet that time it was the Democrats who failed. You can continue to blame Republicans but in truth neither party has worked to fix this issue. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.1    3 weeks ago

Yes John, republicans have opposed granting amnesty to  illegals in bills  that didn’t require border security. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.3.5  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.2    3 weeks ago

Republicans have balked because the Bills offered have been unmitigated POS.

Democrats love the idea of turning immigration into Democrat indoctrination. They don't care what gets let into this country criminals, rapists, gang bangers, drug/gun runners, sex traffickers, or terrorist. So long as they get that all mighty Democrat registration card and can vote.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.3.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @5.3.5    3 weeks ago

Any good points you sometimes make are almost completely negated by your constant near hysteria about "the left". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.6    3 weeks ago

awwg-1.jpg

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.3.8  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.6    3 weeks ago

My "hysteria about the left" doesn't even come close to your rampant delusions about the right and Trump.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago
The fact is that the House Republicans and America's MAGA reject the very concept of compromise.

There is no compromise.  The Democrats want "reform".  For that to happen there needs to be control measures.  Traitor Joe did away with those control measures on his 1st day in office and has man absolutely no attempt to put them in place.  

The right wing media has been in near hysteria about terrorists coming over the border on a constant if not daily basis, claiming that Biden was willing to let Americans die from terrorist attacks rather than act at the border.

And the Democrats, Traitor Joe and their band of idiot lemmings have provided enough evidence that is what's happening.  But instead of addressing the problem, they all just play good little games.

Now, in a twist of fate, the Republicans own the threat of terrorist attacks from the southern border. 

Not until Traitor Joe rescinds his EO and begins securing the border.  

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.5  George  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago
the Republicans own the threat of terrorist attacks

That's a lie, I realize that Biden is a worthless piece of shit, but he is still responsible for enforcing the law.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

Why would  republicans be  responsible for joe Biden not exercising power he already has?  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.7  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

Right John. 

There are no terrorists that have crossed the border over the last three damn years of it being completely open. Not a single one had the damn idea to come over. They are all going to wait to see if this damn POS of bill passes or not.

Even if it does pass; there is not one damn thing in it about vetting standards for any of the illegals that cross. It won't stop one damn terrorist, drug/gun runner, sex trafficker, rapist, criminal, or gang banger. 

It is nothing more than turning the border into a Democrat indoctrination center. Get your US citizenship in one line; and Democrat registration card in the next.

This is what happens when POS Establishment Republicans cater to Democrats just so they can say they passed something.

Democrats care more about Ukraine's border integrity and sovereignty than our own. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
5.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago
The fact is that the House Republicans and America's MAGA reject the very concept of compromise.

Ask Chuck where HR 2 is

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Back in 2

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7  Snuffy    3 weeks ago
Today may be impeachment time for the radical HS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

While I'm not at all happy with the situation at the border today, I still believe this impeachment is wrong for three reasons.

  1. The House has much more important issues to be working on and this investigation and impeachment takes away from time that could be spent on more productive issues for the American people, such as the budgets or the upcoming tax reform sunset.
  2. Mayorkas himself wasn't making policy for the border, he was following the instructions from Biden. This was policy from the Administration.
  3. There's no way I can see a Democratic controlled Senate convicting him so any impeachment is really just a waste of time.
 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @7    3 weeks ago

I agree. I would also say killing the Senate border bill weakens any case the House GOP have on the subject as well. It really shows this is more about politics than governing.

The left wing Progressives hate the bill, calling it, "a return to cruel Trump policies" it so it has to be doing something worthwhile...

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
7.1.1  George  replied to  evilone @7.1    3 weeks ago

What about the house border bill that was passed almost a year ago? 5000 a day before they actually consider closing the border? you have to be aa fucking idiot to think this is sustainable. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  evilone @7.1    3 weeks ago

Schumer killed the House Immigration Bill- so the ball is still in the Democrats court; because there is no way the GOP Establishment bill to appease the Democrats is going to pass the House. 

Left wing progressives would hate anything that even remotely looks like it will put a cap on illegal immigration. No matter how much of a lie the cap is.

Brandon and Mayorkas still have to enforce the law; and in three years they have proven not to care about US borders or immigration laws- so what makes anyone think they will suddenly change now?

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to get Ukraine/Israel money- without doing one damn thing to secure the border and lower the numbers of illegals entering this country.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  George @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

The security provisions don’t kick in until we have higher a  number of illegal immigrants than we have ever had in history  before Biden was president  and even then the bill lets Biden  waive them for any reason.    

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.4  evilone  replied to  George @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
What about the house border bill that was passed almost a year ago?

What about it? Here was what most of the GOP asked for...until Trump tossed in a grenade. 

5000 a day before they actually consider closing the border?

That's a week, not a day and as the bill is written it's "consider" at 4000 and "fucking do it" at 5000. We have more than 5000 coming in a day now so... Once passed and signed the border would be closed again immediately. It also adds more border patrol agents, more detainment facilities and more court staff as well as upping the bar to what qualifies as asylum. It would be a big win for conservatives. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.5  evilone  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.2    3 weeks ago
Schumer killed the House Immigration Bill- so the ball is still in the Democrats court;

If you want solutions, it's in everyone's court. If you just want to play politics, then... it will never get solved. Schumer killed the last one, Johnson kills this one.. When will you say enough?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  evilone @7.1.4    3 weeks ago
It would be a big win for conservatives. 

On this issue, they dont care about "a" win, they want it all. The other side needs to totally capitulate or the GOP wants no bill. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @7.1.4    3 weeks ago
5000 a day before they actually consider closing the border?
That's a week, not a day and as the bill is written it's "consider" at 4000 and "fucking do it" at 5000.

No, not correct.  It's an average of 4000 or 5000 daily for a week.

New emergency authority to restrict border crossings if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. If that metric is reached, the Homeland Security secretary could decide to largely bar migrants from seeking asylum if they crossed the border unlawfully.

If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week,  DHS is required to use the authority. If encounters reach 8,500 in one day, the department is required to trigger the authority. But the federal government is limited in how long it can use the authority.

Key highlights of the Senate’s proposed border deal package | CNN Politics

So if they have for a week period (and nothing in the bill seems to state that the week is Sunday thru Saturday, could be arbitrary) daily crossings of 7000, 2000, 3000, 5000, 9000, 3000, 2000;  that's a daily average of 4428. Under that metric they COULD decide to close the border but are not required to.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.8  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.7    3 weeks ago
No, not correct.  It's an average of 4000 or 5000 daily for a week.

I mis-read that online. My fault. It's still a trigger and not an allowance. 

The mechanism would be triggered after the number of encounters reached an average of 5,000 per day over a week — or 8,500 in a given day.

 Under that metric they COULD decide to close the border but are not required to.

A GOP run department head would... Killing it on this basis alone shows weakness in a Trump win. 

The biggest win for the GOP on passage would be an immediate closing of the border now. 

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
7.1.9  George  replied to  evilone @7.1.4    3 weeks ago
That's a week, not a day and as the bill is written it's "consider" at 4000 and "fucking do it" at 5000.

That response is dishonest, if you don't know the details then that is one thing, but to misrepresent what the bill states for political reasons is just wrong. 

Here is where the 4000 number you misrepresent comes from.

New emergency authority to restrict border crossings if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. If that metric is reached, the Homeland Security secretary could decide to largely bar migrants from seeking asylum if they crossed the border unlawfully.

This only applies to those that cross unlawfully nothing about ports of entry and it says "COULD DECIDE" not would or must. 

Here is the actual truth from the bill.

If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS is required to use the authority. If encounters reach 8,500 in one day, the department is required to trigger the authority. But the federal government is limited in how long it can use the authority. In the first year, the government can use it for 270 days, then 225 calendar days in the second year, and 180 days in the third year. The authority sunsets after three years.

In year 3 the border is wide open after 6 months, and every year after that, so save the bullshit for somebody who hasn't followed the bill.

And even after the threshold is reached, they still have to process 1400 a day, so the border doesn't ever close.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.10  evilone  replied to  George @7.1.9    3 weeks ago
And even after the threshold is reached, they still have to process 1400 a day, so the border doesn't ever close.

And this increases the bar for what qualifies as asylum, increases facilities to detain them and increases court staff to process them. It's not a complete solution, but an actual step in the right direction for once.

Of course Johnson and the Trump lemmings can kill it and be happy with the status quo... 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.1.11  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @7.1.8    3 weeks ago

There are some good things in the bill, no doubt. Increasing the number of BP to get more agents to work is a good thing. Increasing the technology to detect drugs and other contraband is a good thing. Increasing the number of courts to reduce the time to find the initial asylum claim is a good thing. 

But I don't think that moving the asylum process away from asylum judges and giving that authority to new asylum officers is good as they do not have the same training as judges and are not as non-partisan as judges take an oath to be. Stating that only the United States District Court for the District of Columbia can be used for cases against the process is IMO wrong. And this bill does nothing for the dreamers or any other illegal immigrant already in the country, it only looks at future border crossers.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.12  evilone  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.6    3 weeks ago
On this issue, they dont care about "a" win, they want it all.

Make no mistakes. This bill was killed because Trump demanded it be killed. It is in Trump's best interests politically to make the border Biden's bitch. The Progressive Left owes Trump a thank you on this one.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.6    3 weeks ago
On this issue, they dont care about "a" win, they want it all. The other side needs to totally capitulate or the GOP wants no bill. 

Biden doesn't really want to do anything on the border. He has done nothing for 3 years, and now, suddenly (because of polls and Democratic bitching) he is 'concerned'?

If one can't see this is strictly about the election and Biden's sagging poll numbers, they just aren't looking.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @7.1.12    3 weeks ago
make the border Biden's bitch.

The border is Biden's responsibility.

His choices, his problems.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.7    3 weeks ago

And of course, the cartels will simply manipulate the flows to their advantage. And that assumes  Biden wouldn't just waive enforcement anyway, a safe bet since he's spent the last three years refusing to exercise the same authority.  This bill would also allow Mayorkas to simply unilaterally grant asylum claims without even a hearing before a judge, compounding the problem even more. 

There's nothing in this bill that shuts the border, or requires Biden to do anything. It's just "trust him" him to act for a limited time (bill has time limits) when the border is worse than it ever has been in American history even though he refuses to act now when he has the same power.  The actual  deal is billions for immigration processing and liberal NGOs in exchange for promises some action might be taken for a short amount of time if Biden wants to. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.16  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.11    3 weeks ago
But I don't think that moving the asylum process away from asylum judges and giving that authority to new asylum officers is good as they do not have the same training as judges and are not as non-partisan as judges take an oath to be. Stating that only the United States District Court for the District of Columbia can be used for cases against the process is IMO wrong.

I agree. They are odd points of change to a system that just needs to be strengthened. Maybe now that more time will be allowed for the floor to make changes some of this can be fixed.

And this bill does nothing for the dreamers or any other illegal immigrant already in the country, it only looks at future border crossers.

It's more about curbing the imminent problem we see today. Unfortunately the current GOP will never do anything to help Dreamers. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.1.17  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @7.1.16    3 weeks ago
Maybe now that more time will be allowed for the floor to make changes some of this can be fixed.

One can hope, but due to the narrow margins for the GOP in the House I'm doubtful that any meaningful and helpful changes can be made. And what changes might be made, it's doubtful that House Democrats will vote for them. Party obedience is just too high a priority for those in Congress.

Unfortunately the current GOP will never do anything to help Dreamers. 

Neither will the Democrats. Both parties like to keep them right where they are so that they can be used to hammer the "other" side. Like I said, party obedience over citizens.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.18  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.17    3 weeks ago
And what changes might be made, it's doubtful that House Democrats will vote for them. Party obedience is just too high a priority for those in Congress.

No doubt. It's all about the political circus now. 

Neither will the Democrats.

Dems tried a couple of time, but yeah... It's a wedge issue and all about raising campaign cash than governing. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.19  evilone  replied to  evilone @7.1.18    3 weeks ago

Speaking of political circuses - The House Mayorkas impeachment is now dead. The GOP could only lose 3 votes. Scalise is out for medical treatments and both Buck and McClintock have publicly announced no votes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @7.1.19    3 weeks ago

So Mayorkas will continue to do the President's bidding while the crisis on the border continues.

What a plan!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.21  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.20    3 weeks ago
So Mayorkas will continue to do the President's bidding...

Please.... /s

Did you ever think it would pass the Senate even if it passed the House? 

...the crisis on the border continues.

It does continue while both chambers continue with their circuses and fund raising, but winning elections are more important that governing. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @7.1.21    3 weeks ago
Did you ever think it would pass the Senate even if it passed the House? 

I don't want anything to pass until a stand-alone bill on border security is in place and enforced.

It does continue while both chambers continue with their circuses and fund raising, but winning elections are more important that governing. 

Joe Biden did zero about the border until Democratic sanctuary officials started whining and the polls showed him his stance was not favored by voters.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.23  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.22    3 weeks ago
I don't want anything to pass until a stand-alone bill on border security is in place and enforced.

I was talking about the impending improbable impeachment. There will never be a stand-alone bill on border security. It's not how our government operates. It's called give and take. They should take what's offered (maybe add a few tweaks) and hit ever infotainment and media outlet they can find with an open mic to crow about their win, but no... they won't. The Don has spoken and they fall over each other to kiss the ring.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @7.1.23    3 weeks ago

I don't really care if the GOP bails Biden and Co. out or not.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.1.25  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @7.1.23    3 weeks ago
The Don has spoken and they fall over each other to kiss the ring.

Partially Trump and partially the party. Of course the RNC doesn't want to give Biden any big wins in an election year as they would much rather have their candidate win. It's the same thing the Democrats did in 2020 to prevent Trump from having any big wins. Party politics over all...   

I believe this is why only Hollywood could make a movie like Mr. Smith goes to Washington. An honest person going to Congress? Only Hollywood can make magic like that.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.26  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.25    3 weeks ago
Partially Trump and partially the party.

My point is it's largely the Party's bill. It's the Freedom Caucus and Trump killing it for perceived political gain.

It's the same thing the Democrats did in 2020 to prevent Trump from having any big wins.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

It appears republicans Are going to stop Schumer’s  bill and demand it be discussed  for more than 48 hours before voting  and allow for amendments.  That is how legislative compromise and bipartisan agreement is supposed to be reached in the senate,  not a handful of senators reaching agreement and demanding an up immediate  take it or leave vote.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
9  George    3 weeks ago

Never fails, when your argument is based on lies, and how absolutely horrible this bill is for America is exposed. Blame trump is the only card left. Democrats don't want the border closed. Democrats plan on Biden winning in November and historically the party out of power wins the next presidential election, so is it any surprise that the worthless pieces of shit democrats in the senate sunset enforcement just when a republican president would historically be coming to power?

 
 

Who is online


Ronin2
Mark in Wyoming
Tacos!
Gazoo
Just Jim NC TttH
JohnRussell


60 visitors