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 (19) |
Author: onepoorguy 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 84350 
Subject: Re: Migrant Fears
Date: 03/14/24 2:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
Point out the litigation section. It is questionable legally, which is why it was stayed several times. There were appeals pending in the courts when Biden took office (next section after "litigation". From what albaby has explained, it was not likely to survive all the challenges. Once they are here, you can't mini-deport them unless Mexico (for example) agrees to it. They have the legal right to apply for asylum, and if they pass their initial interview, remain until they have their court date.

Trump also had two years of Rep control of Congress, and also did nothing. He tried to EO his way through, but the courts kept shooting his EOs down.

No, it would be a lie to say it is all the Rep's fault. This issue has been festering for decades. Back in the 80s and 90s, it was how many people think it still is: Mexicans (mostly) sneaking across the border to find work. But that hasn't been true for maybe 20 years now. They are asylum seekers. Whole different set of rules, completely different circumstance. And it's not just Mexicans. It's a lot of Central and South America, plus China, and Ukraine, and Russia...just to name a few. Fleeing war, civil violence (gangs, warlords, whatever), government-sponsored violence (repression and persecution), etc. And we are legally obligated to process every one of them that crosses our border.

The Senate bill would have tightened restrictions, possibly even to the point that part of it might have been struck down. We'll never know because -this time- it is squarely on Trump and Johnson. I can't say "Reps" here because Reps were in the room at the negotiating table, and were hammering out a compromise that under almost any other circumstance, a large number of Dems would not have agreed to. I'm sure the progressive wing is secretly thanking Trump and Johnson, because they especially didn't want that bill.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to onepoorguy 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 (19) |


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