No. of Recommendations: 8
Such as? They don't want a wall and they don't want actual law enforcement on the border. The democrats want more agents to process people into the country faster.
There's no way to have a wall that allows you to avoid these problems. We've talked about this - most the border is the river, and the closest point at which you could build a permanent structure is hundreds of feet from the border. Which means a wall can't prevent people from physically entering the country.
We have, and Democrats want, actual law enforcement on the border. If you cross the border unlawfully, you can and will be detained. That's law enforcement. And just like actual law enforcement, people who are detained by border law enforcement are entitled to judicial process before a punishment is imposed. You can't throw them out of the country before they're processed.
So that's why you need more agents - to process people out of the country faster. Since we take so long to process people after they're detained, we have to let them into the country. We have nowhere to keep them locked up for years, and no way to pay for them to be locked up for years.
HB 2 passed with all but 2 Republicans voting yes. What GOP senator is going to vote no?
Again, you're missing the key feature of messaging bills. HR 2 passed the House because Schumer wouldn't put it on the floor. If the GOP had control of the Senate, then HR 2 wouldn't have passed the House. Because it's got stuff in it that more than 2 House Republicans don't want to actually become law - but they'll vote for it when whipped, because it can't become law.
Oh, but since you asked, Collins, Murkowski, and Romney would have voted no just on political philosophy. GOP Senators from states with large numbers of migrant farmworkers (looking at you Thom Tillis) wouldn't have voted for that bill in its current form, either (the ag impacts are why Massie voted against it in the House).
The government under Biden has been actively shipping migrants around and more or less ignoring the fact that we have a border at all. This is an issue that's been brewing for 40 years. There have been massive strides made in the last 2 in educating the public as to the real story.
You keep saying stuff like that, and we keep pointing out to you that the situation on the ground is caused by the laws on the books - not by the Executive. You can't stop migrants from physically crossing the border, once they've crossed the border they're entitled to be processed, we don't have the budgeted resources to either process them quickly or detain them all when we don't, so you cannot avoid having them enter the country.
You can't solve the problem without Congressional action, and you can't get Congressional action unless you reach a compromise between the parties. So if you won't accept a bill that both parties can support, you can't solve the problem. Electing Trump doesn't change that.
