Children and immigration reform

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Classic gaslighting.  “Take this bill that solves almost nothing or else that means you don’t want to address the border”. 

We get it...you don't want thousands more border agents and billions in support on the border along with tougher Asylum laws with an increase in support to process and detain people that do come in.

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

They're enforcing existing law to the best extent that courts allow

They aren’t and no matter  how many times you state this it won’t magically come true.  

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

We get it...you don't want thousands more border agents and billions in support on the border along with tougher Asylum laws with an increase in support to process and detain people that do come in.

Please quote me where I said I don’t want more border agents or billions in border security dollars…thanks in advance.     
 

NVmD.  You got your gaslighting in, I know you will just move on like it never happened.  

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

So what happens between 0-5,000 James? 
 

Oh, and while you’re answering that question, why not give us a true accounting of who is included in the 5,000 number and who is not incudes? (I guess 5,000 isn’t really 5,000)

 

While you’re doing that James, how about we look and compare codifying the at least 1.8 million illegal entries into the US to the Obama and Trump years.  You know when everyone was saying the border needed fixed at roughly 500,000 encounters a year.  So now we are fine with 1.8 million   
 

Yes Filidorkski.  Spew those facts.  Please!  

This actually explains that.  You acting like the border is just going to be wide open for the first 5,000 is simply not true.  

 

 

Just now, Archy1221 said:

Please quote me where I said I don’t want more border agents or billions in border security dollars…thanks in advance.     
 

NVmD.  You got your gaslighting in, I know you will just move on like it never happened.  

You, think the bill would be worse than what we have now. The bill provides more agents and more dollars in border security.  So, if you don't want the bill....then....

[Danny Bateman]

I see the GOP talking points got sent out to the usual suspects for why the bill just isn’t actually good without delay. 
 

“We want 100% of our wishlist or we’ll take our ball and go home. Yes it’s a crisis. Yes it’s out of control. No we don’t care. This is how politics actually works. We’re a serious party and demand to be taken seriously.”

 

What a hoot.

[DevoHusker]

Just now, Danny Bateman said:

I see the GOP talking points got sent out to the usual suspects for why the bill just isn’t actually good without delay. 
 

“We want 100% of our wishlist or we’ll take our ball and go home. Yes it’s a crisis. Yes it’s out of control. No we don’t care. This is how politics actually works. We’re a serious party and demand to be taken seriously.”

 

What a hoot.

 

I think most points of the bill will work, and it is bipartisan. I think they actually did try to work out points that address a lot of the issues. And, for the record, I am for securing the border, then INCREASing legal entry. 

 

Just don't tie it in with another $75 billion in funding to Ukraine and Isreal. 

[DevoHusker]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 Next time you see a crew roofing houses, paving roads, or visit your local slaughter house and let me know what you see. Hint: there are not a lot of legal workers clamoring for those jobs (A meat packing plant in Grand Island Nebraska was hit with fines after it was discovered that they employed child labor of illegal immigrants). H.R.2 mandates the use of E-Verify which would gut those industries but does not expand legal immigration to make up for the shortfall. 

Yes, I am from the Tri Cities area. My community has always been multicultural. Our public school system is 50/50, and individual schools approach 90% minority. I have no idea of individual immigration status, but know that those jobs are filled mostly by newcomers. 

 

32 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

The current agreement compromises on slightly less restrictive immigration policies but expands legal immigration visa's to makeup for the shortfall. It also expands the number of Asylum judges and officers to properly adjudicate asylum petitions.

 

They're enforcing existing law to the best extent that courts allow. Furthering the enforcement of law requires executive orders, which are challenged in court. It's been the base immigration policy for decades  and why immigration policy seemingly changes by administration as their immigration agenda goes through the courts and eventually dies.

 

The current bill codifies certain administrative powers into law to avoid this. I'm much further to the right on immigration than other democrats, this bill is mediocre. But it's also the only one that has a chance of passing. This is it, there are no alternatives. You either want to address the issue with what can actually pass in Congress or you can continue with the status quo of immigration policy which is Presidency-to-Presidency via executive orders, where the policy goes through courts and changes based on what judge see's the case.

 

Agree that the current bipartisan offering is better than HR2. I would stand a MUCH better chance if they dropped the additional $75 billion in aid for other countries' wars...

 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I do admit, it's pretty funny to see the Republican Party on the cusp of one of their biggest policy victories in 20 years, winning the battle against Democrats who've opposed these kinds of immigration restrictions since the 1990s, only to deem them not restrictive enough because the Orange Cult Leader wants to win an election to avoid going to prison.

 

They're going to torpedo one of the few policy goals they have all in the name of one of Felon-to-be-Trump. A form of self immolation that is hilarious. The border issue will never be addressed beyond this point. Republicans will never get 60 votes next year to pass even more restrictive policy. 

 

But hey, why fix problems when you can win elections? 

Makes a lot more sense when you remember Republicans don’t care about actually solving problems. They care about propagating their worldview, much of which they can already accomplish through the courts. They certainly don’t want to legislate.

 

They view their job as winning elections. They want power simply for the sake of power. They want to remain in Washington as long as possible to reap the benefits for themselves while trying to break the government, making it as dysfunctional as possible, with a thin veneer of being serious people trying to do the job they were sent there to do.

 

Also, of course they complain current enforcement isn’t enough. They don’t care “tougher enforcement” means toothless, unconstitutional EOs, directives already ruled illegal or abject cruelty. The modern GOP doesn’t give two rips about the Constitution. They want their way, they want it now and they simply want to pin this issue on Biden; see the “craven power hungry twats” excerpt above.

[Danny Bateman]

10 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I think most points of the bill will work, and it is bipartisan. I think they actually did try to work out points that address a lot of the issues. And, for the record, I am for securing the border, then INCREASing legal entry. 

 

Just don't tie it in with another $75 billion in funding to Ukraine and Isreal. 

There once was a time when you could rely on the GOP to not just roll over for the Ruskies attacking our allies.

 

Sadly, that time has passed and is gone, so now we have to use cute little tricks like this to drag them along with beating back the commies.

 

Shame so many of them grew to idolize Putin, truly.

[Archy1221]

37 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

This actually explains that.  You acting like the border is just going to be wide open for the first 5,000 is simply not true.  

 

 

You, think the bill would be worse than what we have now. The bill provides more agents and more dollars in border security.  So, if you don't want the bill....then....

Then what?  
 

Chris Murphy, one of the authors of the bill, disagrees with Filidorkski’s post from Melgin.  People don’t get set back immediately, they just get re-routed to port of entry. 

 

Gotta love the sunset provisions….provisions that the President can just bypass anyways btw..

 

 

[Archy1221]

30 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Yes, I am from the Tri Cities area. My community has always been multicultural. Our public school system is 50/50, and individual schools approach 90% minority. I have no idea of individual immigration status, but know that those jobs are filled mostly by newcomers. 

 

 

Agree that the current bipartisan offering is better than HR2. I would stand a MUCH better chance if they dropped the additional $75 billion in aid for other countries' wars...

 

Here’s one of my biggest issues with the bill……it basically codifies 1.8 million illegal entries into the US per year when the standard that we were WANTING to fox was roughly 500,000-600,000 a year.    I mean, it’s almost double the number during the Bush years when the border was a disaster and everyone agreed on that.   
 

Why do the “tougher border enhancements” have to wait till then?   Why does everything have to funneled to a port of entry ONLY when an average of 5,000 a day is happening.  
 

Shouldn’t that currently be happening now? And what makes us think that if we can’t do it now, it will magically happen when the system is constantly over 5,000 encounters away from ports of entry?  

[BigRedBuster]

50 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Then what?  
 

Chris Murphy, one of the authors of the bill, disagrees with Filidorkski’s post from Melgin.  People don’t get set back immediately, they just get re-routed to port of entry. 

 

Gotta love the sunset provisions….provisions that the President can just bypass anyways btw..

 

 

 

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Uhhhh Chris knows no one is talking about commerce/trade when the words “close the border”  is discussed in this immigration reform bill.   Chris knows it’s in reference to closings incoming illegal or asylum seeking immigrants from entering.   But Chris now knows the mistake he let out of the bag and is not trying to cover said mistake by gaslighting and goal post moving.

[Dr. Strangelove]

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Uhhhh Chris knows no one is talking about commerce/trade when the words “close the border”  is discussed in this immigration reform bill.   Chris knows it’s in reference to closings incoming illegal or asylum seeking immigrants from entering.   But Chris now knows the mistake he let out of the bag and is not trying to cover said mistake by gaslighting and goal post moving.

I think Conservatives rallying around the killing of the best concessions they've had from Democrats - who currently hold a Senate MAJORITY - in 30 years is hilarious.

 

You are more than free to articulate how Republicans plan on passing a more restrictive immigration bill and get 60 Senate votes. If so, you'll find yourself with a high paying Consulting job in Washington DC.

 

You're also free to articulate how the President can "enforce existing laws" that doesn't involve endless court battles and the details of which change every time a different party controls the Presidency. If you do this, you will also find yourself making gobs of money as a Consultant in Washington DC.

 

Don't get me wrong, I find it humorous that Republicans are willing to self-immolate on the best deal they're going to get from Democrats in our lifetime. Watching Republicans squander all of their political advantages is a bit of a sick hobby I have. But also as a person genuinely concerned about Asylum claims at the border, this bill is the best and ONLY bet we have of doing that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

Just don't tie it in with another $75 billion in funding to Ukraine and Isreal. 

I would genuinely like to discuss with you why funding Ukraine is of vital importance to the United States and our future interests, if you're willing to have an honest discussion.

 

I'd be willing to give it real thought on if the continuing struggle of what appears to be a stalemate, if not slight Russian advantage currently, is worth continued investment.