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 (247) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84346 
Subject: Re: Trump: I Would Encourage Russia...
Date: 02/12/24 4:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 5
If a Trump or a DeSantis wanted to close the border for any reason, it's a simple matter to lawfare it back open via a friendly judge.

But how does that tie their hands? They don't have the power to close the border now. It would be illegal for Trump or DeSantis to refuse to allow people to apply for asylum - under any circumstances. The proposed bill would create - for the first time - a set of circumstances where the President would have the new power to refuse to allow people to apply for asylum. A power, again, that the President utterly lacks today.

How does that tie their hands?

It was far from a security bill. Let's not claim that it was.

Except that it would increase funding for the border patrol, increase funding for detention facilities, tighten the criteria for passing a credible fear determination, eliminate the 'benefit' of having years in the U.S. pending the scheduling of an immigration determination, and move many/most immigration determinations out of immigration judges and into administrative staff. You know, solving the problems presented by having all those people waiting around for their hearings.

And why is this? We both know why: The democrats want an open border. If they didn't, the above statement would be untrue.

No - the Democrats don't want an open border, and we don't have an open border. Which, again, is why all of those hundreds of thousands of border patrol encounters don't result in people having lawful status in the United States. The Democrats want the metaphorical "strong fence with a big door," and they think both are necessary in order for the border to serve the interests of the United States. They don't want to shrink the door while making the fence stronger, so they insist on having "door" provisions in every fence bill.

That's why this bill, the first since 1996 that was almost entirely "fence" and virtually no "door" represents a colossal lost opportunity for immigration hawks. They'll not see a better opportunity to move the border more towards their vision of how it should be for a generation or more.
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 (247) |


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