Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (61) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: Priority #1 Is Fizzling
Date: 02/16/25 3:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 18
Yes it did. Why do you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this? Emergency procedures wouldn’t be allowed until the threshold of 5,000 encounters a day were hit.

Allowing any number above zero creates an incentive to storm the border in the hopes that you win the lottery that day.


No, it doesn't. Again, the status quo doesn't have any emergency procedures. So there's no "lottery" to win. Today, everyone is immune from emergency procedures - under the proposal, some people might have been hit with emergency procedures. The proposal is more strict than the status quo, and doesn't codify any benefits that asylees don't already have.

BTW if Trump wants more Border Patrol funding it’s a simple addendum to a reconciliation bill.

Except again, the reality is far more complicated - because the reconciliation bills aren't simple. Which is the source of the "one vs. two" debate between the Senate and House GOP. The Senate wants to pass a reconciliation bill with just border and energy money, with a second reconciliation package on budgets and taxes and deficits to follow. Because they know the votes exist on that first reconciliation package.

The House wants to do one bill - because they know that the second bill has a lot of issues that Members disagree on, and might not pass without Democratic votes. So they need the immigration and energy provisions to whip recalcitrant members. If Trump's most important policy priority isn't in the second bill, members might insist that the package address their own districts' priorities rather than fear the wrath of Trump.

Again, bird in the hand. The GOP passed up a chance for a big increase in deportation resources. Now that Trump won the election, he doesn't have the resources necessary for any material increase in deportation flow. So deportations aren't increasing materially. It turns out that the then-current rate of deportation was a result of resource constraints rather than executive recalcitrance, despite what conservatives were claiming. So changing the executive to an immigration hardliner didn't change those deportation flows.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (61) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community