Post New

In one chart. No, I don't care that it's a chart on social media because it points to the right data:

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1754889761905324...

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/custody-and-tra...

Processing Disposition Oct-23 Nov-23 Dec-23
Notice To Appear/Own Recognizance (NTA-OR) 122,716 131,295 191,141

The bill will fail because this is what it essentially locks in as a matter of law. 5,000 illegals per day = 150,000 a month before any triggers take place. (And that's assuming Biden wouldn't just ignore it, as the law lets him do. That part is called the President determining that closing the border is not in the national interest.)

Why is this a good thing? It's not. It's absurd, and this is why the bill won't get past its cloture vote.

democrats can complain that this is real reform, won't get this again, yadda yadda yadda but none of you can escape the reality of the numbers above. And for those of you who complain about source material in lieu of debating issues...this is the CBP's own data.

Why is this a good thing?

Because the current situation doesn't have any triggers. Or the ability to keep up with the flow of migrants.

You've been fulminating a lot against the bill, but you seem to misunderstand that everything about it is an improvement over the present situation in terms of reducing both the gross numbers and impacts of asylees so that the system can manage the number of applicants without negative consequences. The bill increases the number of detention beds while cutting the amount of time to process asylee requests (both by increasing immigration judge levels and by providing for increased administrative disposition of applications). It tightens the criteria for requesting asylum at the credible fear determination, which will result in a significant increase in the number of folks who get deported immediately at the very beginning of the process.

The goal of those substantive changes is to get back to a situation where the system can handle the number of people applying for asylum. That way, these folks won't be able to hang around in the country for years pending their hearings. The changes should be enough to get numbers down to the point where hearings are available in months, not years. Combine that with the increase in funding in detention, and you should be able to get to the point where most asylees spend very little time in-country while awaiting a determination.

The triggers are just the emergency backstop - if there's a short-term burst of asylees at any one time (which happens in peak season), the border gets shut down so that they can't apply while the system is overloaded. Again, that is a vast improvement over the current situation - where there are no triggers and no restrictions on how many people can request asylum after entering outside of a POE.

What is your actual objection to any of these changes? They all make the system tighter against migrants. Which is why migrant advocacy groups are pissed that almost everything in the bill makes the system harder for their constituents. In every aspect, it tightens the screws at the border.

Dope1: The bill will fail because this is what it essentially locks in as a matter of law. 5,000 illegals per day = 150,000 a month before any triggers take place.

Read the bill, buddy, not some nitwit's musings on Twitter (X):

"(B) MANDATORY ACTIVATION. — The Secretary shall activate the border emergency authority if

"(i) during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 8 or more aliens who are encountered each day; or

"(ii) on any 1 calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered.

(C) CALCULATION OF ACTIVATION.

"(i) IN GENERAL. — For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B), the average for the applicable 7-day period shall be calculated using—

"the sum of "aa) the number of encounters that occur between the southwest land border ports of entry of the United States;

"(bb) the number of encounters that occur between the ports of entry along the southern coastal borders; and

"(cc) the number of inadmissible aliens encountered at a southwest land border port of entry as described in subsection (a)(2)(F)(iv); divided by 7 "(II) 7.

The trigger is encounters, not crossings. There are no 5,000 crossers per day, every day.

And there's this, too:

"(III) SUMMARY REMOVAL.—If an alien does not seek such a secondary review, or if the supervisory asylum officer finds that such alien is not eligible for such protection, the supervisory asylum officer shall order the alien summarily removed without further review.

Asylum officers can immediately remove ineligible individuals. IMMEDIATELY, no review.

This should be your dream come true.

No wonder the border patrol officers union loves this bill.

I mean, fercryinoutloud, this should be like Christmas for you guys.

What is your actual objection to any of these changes? They all make the system tighter against migrants. Which is why migrant advocacy groups are pissed that almost everything in the bill makes the system harder for their constituents. In every aspect, it tightens the screws at the border. - Lapsody

-----------------------

Dope can give you his thoughts, but as for me I was working hard to be open minded. More or less on the basis of the tool can wielded lightly or aggressively by a president, and not expecting much from Biden, I could look forward to the Trump admin being more strident, the important thing was the tool comes into existence. I further rationalized, this may be the best compromise because how aggressively the tool will be used
will reflect the will of the people, as expressed by who they elect as president.


The actual bill, as released, limits the tools existence to three years, when it is very likely to take three years or more to ramp up the processes and achieve a wobbly equilibrium under the new rules.

If the Bill will improve all the things that proponents claim, then why on earth did they include a three year sunset or steadily declining caps on the number of shutdown days allowed? Methinks skullduggery is afoot. Anyway, I still remain ever hopeful the amendment process will be allowed to put some lipstick on this pig.

Because the current situation doesn't have any triggers. Or the ability to keep up with the flow of migrants.

The correct answer to the number of illegals allowed in is zero. If you're going to bother to pass legislation at all, then that's the level to set.

And that's the crux of what I've been "fulminating" about: if the current level of influx at the border is a crisis and you're going to codify literally a million illegal aliens a year - what this bill does - then...how does codifying the crisis in law help?

At all? The answer is that it doesn't. Not only does it not help, it actually makes things worse.

but you seem to misunderstand that everything about it is an improvement over the present situation in terms of reducing

I'm sorry, but no. You're the one who's not getting it at all.

One more time. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/custody-and-tra...
Official CBP numbers.

Processing Disposition Oct-23 Nov-23 Dec-23
Notice To Appear/Own Recognizance (NTA-OR) 122,716 131,295 191,141

First: Do you agree that what we have right now is a crisis?
Because if you do, then you should note that this bill allows 150,000 illegals in a month. Which puts it a little under the average of two of the worst months we've ever had.

This would be baked into the law. Why? That's insane.

The bill increases the number of detention beds while cutting the amount of time to process asylee requests (both by increasing immigration judge levels and by providing for increased administrative disposition of applications). I

This is the particular hill you're dying on. What you neglect to mention is that we already have a 2M or so case backlog. How does this bill address that given that it allows another 1.5M people in a year?

Oh, and can you tell me how much money is there for an actual wall?

The triggers are just the emergency backstop - if there's a short-term burst of asylees at any one time (which happens in peak season), the border gets shut down so that they can't apply while the system is overloaded.

The triggers aren't an emergency backup. Why is this a notion? The triggers are also purely optional. There is no "short term burst". Look at the numbers. That's the new normal.

What is your actual objection to any of these changes? They all make the system tighter against migrants.

You guys keep saying this, but the actual bill does not do any such thing.

If the Bill will improve all the things that proponents claim, then why on earth did they include a three year sunset or steadily declining caps on the number of shutdown days allowed?

I suspect it's because a big part of their constituents hate this bill. Hate it, hate it, hate it. A sizable part of the Democratic coalition believes - correctly - that accepting asylees is both a legal obligation on the U.S. under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and a humanitarian/moral obligation for any just and good country. Signatories to the Refugee Convention (and at this point, international law generally) are permitted to set the processes and conditions for how they handle refugees....but they aren't allowed to just send them back to their home country. And while this bill doesn't actually get us to the point where we're violating international law, it does set up likely instances where legitimate refugees end up getting hurt in their own countries because they couldn't seek asylum.

So the Administration is trying to sell them on the idea that this is a time-limited response to a temporary problem. Our southern border issue used to be folks coming for work from Mexico, not asylum-seekers looking to resettle from the Central Triangle and elsewhere. The pitch to sell this to the Left is that the current overload to the system is temporary, and that once those conditions have receded a more normal immigrant flow will resume, allowing for a return to a more normal response to asylum seekers. That extraordinary conditions justify the extraordinary measures, but the extraordinary conditions won't last - the flow exceeds the bandwidth right now, but a few years of constricting the flow and increasing the bandwidth will resolve that.

A permanent change would probably doom the bill on the Left - they're not willing to eat the humanitarian cost just to save Ukraine, and there's virtually nothing in the bill that they like on immigration (there's a handful of tiny sweeteners, but they don't change the basic calculation).

So the Administration is trying to sell them on the idea that this is a time-limited response to a temporary problem.

Uh, huh. How is this a temporary solution? When the government is handing out work authorizations left and right?

And that's the crux of what I've been "fulminating" about: if the current level of influx at the border is a crisis and you're going to codify literally a million illegal aliens a year - what this bill does - then...how does codifying the crisis in law help?

Because you're not codifying the crisis into law.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens. The U.S. is a signatory to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. People who are refugees - who meet the criteria under both the 1951 Convention and U.S. law - have a legal right to be free from being expelled or returned to their home countries. That obligation - and not the "safe third country" - is an obligation of the U.S. under international law. What we are allowed to do under international law is to provide a process for how we manage and assess the refugees we find within our borders. But we never will - and cannot and should not - ever get to the point where there are zero asylum-seekers in the U.S.

Right now, what's "codified" into law is that no one claiming asylum is eligible for exclusion or expulsion because they entered outside of a POE. What the new law would do is create a trigger situation where that would change, temporarily, in response to a surge in migrants. That mechanism doesn't "codify" anything that isn't codified already. What it does do is tighten the inflows when they're going to exceed the new capacities of the system to process.

It doesn't make things worse. You've been lied to on that point. The current law provides that no matter how many migrants are coming, you cannot prevent them from applying from asylum no matter where they cross. The proposed law would provide that in certain circumstances, you can prevent them from applying from asylum if the cross outside of a POE. How does that make things worse?

If the numbers don't go down to a level where we can process all the asylees, then the bar on applying for asylum kicks in and we start doing summary expulsions. Which is probably a violation of international law, but one we might be able to defend (maybe) by pointing to the limited circumstances that it kicks in and the need to balance flows and processing capacity.

Oh, and can you tell me how much money is there for an actual wall?

Very little. Because as we've discussed, an "actual wall" doesn't really solve any of the problems caused by asylum seekers. Only a portion of the border with Mexico is on land, and only a portion of that border has the geography where a wall could be constructed right on the border, and only a tiny portion of that area doesn't already have a physical barrier. The problems we're facing now aren't being caused by people that could be blocked by a wall.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement

Uh, huh. How is this a temporary solution? When the government is handing out work authorizations left and right?

Because the problem to be solved is that asylum applications are exceeding the capacity of the government to process them. The bill contains several provisions that will mediate that imbalance. The initial screen (credible fear interview) is being significantly tightened, which will result in a larger proportion of folks being immediately tossed through expedited removal. There is an increase in staffing for the immigration courts. There is a shift of decision-making out of the courts into administrative determinations, which are invariably faster. And there's an increase in detention facilities, which will allow the government to keep more folks from being released due to overcapacity.

All of those steps will materially reduce both the size of the population waiting for asylum determinations and therefore the number of people who need work authorizations while they await their hearings.

The conservative story on immigration is that the in-country delay between processing and hearing is a major draw for migrants. Well, under this bill that in-country delay would be sharply curtailed - perhaps even eliminated altogether. Which is what would (ideally) make this a temporary situation.

Because you're not codifying the crisis into law.

Not triggering the so-called enhanced provisions unless 5,000 people cross the border illegally a day very much codifies it into law.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens. They're illegal aliens who have been coached on what to say. I understand you want to stand behind the letter of the law and ignore what's actually happening.

Right now, what's "codified" into law is that no one claiming asylum is eligible for exclusion or expulsion because they entered outside of a POE. What the new law would do is create a trigger situation where that would change, temporarily, in response to a surge in migrants.

After the first 5,000 came in. You consistently ignore that first bunch.

The proposed law would provide that in certain circumstances, you can prevent them from applying from asylum if the cross outside of a POE. How does that make things worse?

You've been lied to. I just showed you the numbers. The triggers don't do anything unless we have numbers that are among the worst we've ever seen.

If the numbers don't go down to a level where we can process all the asylees, then the bar on applying for asylum kicks in and we start doing summary expulsions. Which is probably a violation of international law, but one we might be able to defend (maybe) by pointing to the limited circumstances that it kicks in and the need to balance flows and processing capacity.

Were you aware that the bill directs *all *immigration* cases to the 5th circuit court? They'll strike down that provision the second it comes across their docket.

Well, under this bill that in-country delay would be sharply curtailed - perhaps even eliminated altogether. Which is what would (ideally) make this a temporary situation.

Pipe dream. You're forgetting the point that there are already years of backlogged cases.

Not triggering the so-called enhanced provisions unless 5,000 people cross the border illegally a day very much codifies it into law.

No, it doesn't. The current code provides for no enhanced provisions no matter how many people cross the border. Whatever crisis exists is already codified into law.

You've been lied to. I just showed you the numbers. The triggers don't do anything unless we have numbers that are among the worst we've ever seen.

What are you talking about? Encounters have exceed that threshold every month for the last three years:

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-enco...

Were you aware that the bill directs *all *immigration* cases to the 5th circuit court? They'll strike down that provision the second it comes across their docket.

On what grounds?

You're forgetting the point that there are already years of backlogged cases.

....which can now be funneled into the new administrative proceedings and into the newly enlarged immigration courts.

Nothing gets better unless we take some steps to make it better. If it takes four years (on average) to get through the immigration judicial process now, the only way to resolve that is to get more immigration judges and transfer some of the cases to faster administrative proceedings. Which this bill does. Not passing the bill keeps the backlog in place.

....which can now be funneled into the new administrative proceedings and into the newly enlarged immigration courts.

Millions of cases of backlogs plus all the new ones coming in.

Which this bill does. Not passing the bill keeps the backlog in place.

I’d support the bill if there was no trigger part. Would you?

A permanent change would probably doom the bill on the Left - they're not willing to eat the humanitarian cost just to save Ukraine, and there's virtually nothing in the bill that they like on immigration (there's a handful of tiny sweeteners, but they don't change the basic calculation). - albaby

------------

I agree with you there. And what is amazing the democrats have masterfully characterized the impasse over the Senate Bill as the fault of Republicans.

I’d support the bill if there was no trigger part. Would you?

No. Again, without some sort of limiting factor, it would violate international law. It's illegal to expel refugees from your country if they meet the requirements of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (which criteria the U.S. immigration law tracks).

The Convention provides some flexibility in the processes by which signatory nations determine whether someone meets those criteria - so the U.S. might be able to position the "triggers" as merely regulating the timing of how those persons are given the opportunity to present their case. But we can't permanently give the federal government the power to expel migrants without hearing (expedited removal) and be in compliance with international law.

Plus, there's no reason to. If the flow isn't exceeding our capacity to process it, you don't need to shut it down. This is a problem of "too many, all at once" - so if the flow isn't at that "too many, all at once" level, the really restrictive measures need not and should not apply.

I agree with you there. And what is amazing the democrats have masterfully characterized the impasse over the Senate Bill as the fault of Republicans.

It's not that amazing. The bill is all stuff that makes immigration harder, and no stuff that addresses what Democrats want from immigration reform. There isn't even anything about DREAMERs, which immigration advocates rightly regard as the low hanging fruit of immigration policy.

So the bill is correctly perceived as a capitulation to Republicans, offered only so that the President can get his Ukraine funding and not because it represents any type of compromise on immigration policy. The GOP has been hammering that migrant flows are an intolerable problem, the Democrats offer them a bill that only tries to cut down on that problem in ways that immigration hawks like (more money for detention, enforcement, and processing! tighter eligibility criteria! more expedited removals!) with virtually nothing on the other side of the immigration ledger....just so the administration can get the Ukraine funding. The Administration has forced the immigration Left to swallow it. And the bill is going to die because of Republican political considerations.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens. The U.S. is a signatory to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. People who are refugees - who meet the criteria under both the 1951 Convention and U.S. law - have a legal right to be free from being expelled or returned to their home countries. That obligation - and not the "safe third country" - is an obligation of the U.S. under international law. What we are allowed to do under international law is to provide a process for how we manage and assess the refugees we find within our borders. But we never will - and cannot and should not - ever get to the point where there are zero asylum-seekers in the U.S.

-------------------

Agree, zero for any length of time is not desirable. But as a sovereign country we should have that option, period. If we don't, then that 70 year old convention needs revisiting, but not really if we had some backbone. Here is the concluding statement on wiki about that 1951 straitjacket,

There is no body that monitors compliance. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has supervisory responsibilities but cannot enforce the Convention, and there is no formal mechanism for individuals to file complaints. The Convention specifies that complaints should be referred to the International Court of Justice.[19] It appears that no nation has ever done this.

An individual may lodge a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or with the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but no one has ever done so in regard to violations of the Convention. Nations may levy international sanctions against violators, but no nation has ever done so.

At present, the only real consequences of violation are 1) public shaming in the press, and 2) verbal condemnation of the violator by the UN and by other nations. To date, those have not proven to be significant deterrents << bhm commentary... "Not Proven"...Except for the USA, where it is applied as an absolute deterrent, much to the satisfaction of the open borders crowd>>

I can live with the shaming <ha> if the alternative is to see resources denied to citizens to pay for unlimited refugees; or if the alternative is to see NYPD cops being beaten by criminals who should never be here; or seeing victims of scooter gangs being dragged around, and so on. Any compassion intended by the 1951 convention has been undermined by criminals and economic migrants gaming the system. Times have changed in 70 years. As a sovereign nation we have not only the right but an obligation to protect our borders as we see fit, and we should not care what the grand poobah at the UN has to say about it.

I’d support the bill if there was no trigger part. Would you? - Dope

---------------

Any bill that actually improves the situation should not sunset in three years... something is amiss

It's illegal to expel refugees from your country if they meet the requirements of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - albaby

Not according to the protocol itself...

Now if the USA passed some law, making compliance mandatory, then that is something we can change. But I fail to see where signing that convention makes non compliance illegal in some way. Like wiki said, enforcement has never been attempted in seventy plus years.

I can live with the shaming <ha> if the alternative is to see resources denied to citizens to pay for unlimited refugees; or if the alternative is to see NYPD cops being beaten by criminals who should never be here; or seeing victims of scooter gangs being dragged around, and so on.

Fortunately, the choice is never between two absolutes. You can have a system that vets, processes, and either removes or accepts people that are claiming refugee status. As long as you have the infrastructure and resources aligned to the needs you're facing (large numbers of asylees voluntarily turning themselves in for processing) rather than the needs of decades past (almost entirely people trying to sneak over the border undetected), you can avoid having all those resources being drained and get people in or out of the country very quickly.

Now if the USA passed some law, making compliance mandatory, then that is something we can change. But I fail to see where signing that convention makes non compliance illegal in some way. Like wiki said, enforcement has never been attempted in seventy plus years.

There are things that are illegal that lack an enforcement mechanism - that doesn't make them not illegal, it just means that there's not a legally enforceable consequence for doing the illegal thing. International law is a really, really complex subject for exactly that reason - nearly every obligation or commitment in international law lacks an enforcement mechanism that parallels what you would find within a national legal system. That doesn't make them disappear, though. And even when there isn't a formal enforcement mechanism in a treaty, countries are properly reluctant to willfully violate their treaty obligations, because it makes it harder for them to entice other nations to enter into agreements and/or comply with existing agreements.

I agree with you there. And what is amazing the democrats have masterfully characterized the impasse over the Senate Bill as the fault of Republicans.

That was inevitable. It allows the dems to front any piece of legislation - no matter how bad - and blame that it didn't pass on the GOP.

The legislation could be a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the free speech clause and they'd still find a way to spin it like that.

Any bill that actually improves the situation should not sunset in three years... something is amiss

Sure. Pass this now, it takes effect presumably immediately, but then sunsets right in the middle of the 2028 election campaign. It's a double-sided trap.

If the bill worked (zero chance, but let's entertain the scenario), then there's pressure on Trump, say, to renegotiate a bill on the democrats' terms.

If the bill didn't work, then the democrats get to blame Trump for not fixing the border even though this bill would have tied his hands going into his Presidency.

I have to tip my cap to them. That's some next level Swamp Strategery.

No.

Okay, then.

Again, without some sort of limiting factor, it would violate international law. It's illegal to expel refugees from your country if they meet the requirements of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (which criteria the U.S. immigration law tracks).


So add a clause that amnesty claims may only be processed at official ports of entry. Anyone claiming amnesty at Eagle Pass or a random hole in the fence is denied. Deal?

There are things that are illegal that lack an enforcement mechanism - that doesn't make them not illegal, it just means that there's not a legally enforceable consequence for doing the illegal thing. International law is a really, really complex subject for exactly that reason - nearly every obligation or commitment in international law lacks an enforcement mechanism that parallels what you would find within a national legal system.

International law is many things. It's also NOT many things.

It doesn't trump the US Constitution, which makes the Chief Executive responsible for the defense and protection of the United States.
It's also not a suicide pact, whereby a nation has no say over how it oversees its borders or residency parameters.

And even when there isn't a formal enforcement mechanism in a treaty, countries are properly reluctant to willfully violate their treaty obligations,

================

Reluctant is NOT impossible as we are led to believe. It is time to fix the problem and not look for things to hide behind. If the Senate Dems cannot face up to lasting border control, then maybe waiting to see what Trump will do is a better alternative. Still waiting on amendments to make the Senate Bill more acceptable.

So add a clause that amnesty claims may only be processed at official ports of entry. Anyone claiming amnesty at Eagle Pass or a random hole in the fence is denied. Deal?

Again, no. That's a violation of international law and our treaty obligations. You can't expel refugees. If you find someone in Eagle Pass and they will be killed or tortured if you send them back to their home country, you can't expel them back to their home country. You can set up whatever processes you want or need in order to determine whether their claims are accurate...but if they are a bona fide refugee, you can't just kick them out and be in compliance with international law.

That means you have to give them a fair process to make their claim - no summary expulsions just because they're not in the place you want them to be.

It is time to fix the problem and not look for things to hide behind. If the Senate Dems cannot face up to lasting border control, then maybe waiting to see what Trump will do is a better alternative. Still waiting on amendments to make the Senate Bill more acceptable.

The bipartisan drafters of the current bill offered a fix for the problem, and came up with a bill that consists almost entirely of immigration restrictions. All offered in exchange for Ukraine and Israel funding, not corresponding concessions on immigration issues. Not even a DREAMER provision! And it's been rejected by Republicans in response to DJT's instructions.

There's nothing that Trump can do that would be a better alternative. His efforts to refuse asylees the opportunity to file their claims were shut down by the courts - as were Biden's subsequent efforts to do the same with modest tweaks. Just like Biden, Trump will lack the legal ability to expel asylum claimants without a hearing. Just like Biden, Trump will lack the detention capacity to keep the claimants in detention until their hearing. So just like Biden, Trump won't be able to provide any alternative to the current situation.

If you want to fix the problem, you have to adopt legislation to fix the problem. Because Biden both needs Ukraine funding now and wants to make this issue go away before the election, you'll never get a better chance to actually fix the problem than this opportunity. And you should be thanking Abbott - not Trump - for getting the chance to adopt the most restrictionist immigration bill in thirty years, and criticizing Trump for blowing it for you.

ou'll never get a better chance to actually fix the problem than this opportunity.= Lapsody

If you think this Bill actually fixes the problem then you are not as circumspect as I thought. At best, it is a step in the right direction that sunsets in three years.

When it sunsets, do we get our Ukraine money back?

If you think this Bill actually fixes the problem then you are not as circumspect as I thought. At best, it is a step in the right direction that sunsets in three years.

When it sunsets, do we get our Ukraine money back?

It's a very big step, one that will dramatically reduce the problem of very large numbers of asylees waiting for several years for a court hearing date - even in just three years. To say nothing of the fact that it's much easier to drop a change to a sunset date into a must-pass bill as an amendment than it ever is to draft something new (hi, Obamacare mandate penalty!).

And no, you don't get the Ukraine money back - because the Ukraine money is being spent to pursue a completely unrelated policy goal. The GOP was successful in forcing the Administration to link Ukraine money with immigration security measures; having achieved their tactical goal of doing so, they're not going to get a "refund" as well.

"The bill will fail because this is what it essentially locks in as a matter of law. 5,000 illegals per day = 150,000 a month before any triggers take place." - Dope1.

I know you have comprehension problems so I will help you out.

Do you understand the difference between illegals entering the country and 5000 encounters per day?

The bills uses the word encounters for a reason. You are implying that at least 5000 people get to come into the country per day before the border shutdown triggers.

Those are not the same thing. You are allowing people to take advantage of you and making you look foolish again.

Because if you do, then you should note that this bill allows 150,000 illegals in a month. Which puts it a little under the average of two of the worst months we've ever had.

This is incorrect. The 5,000 is a rolling average over two weeks, so at the end of two weeks, there is a shut down that allows 1400 asylees only at ports of entry. So if we say there are 5,000 X 14 days = 70,000. Threshold met. Now of those 70,000 encounters, ~33% don't pass the interview, IIRC, so 46,900. Then 1400 a day for 16 days, 1400 X16 = 22,400. 46,900 + 22,400 = 69,300.

So from that month 69,300 go forward. Now let's say the new narrower criteria reduces those allowed after court to 20%, from 40%.

That would mean 69,300 X .20 = 13,860 allowed.

Then there's the 8,650 one day trigger.

And all GOP can run on changing the cap to 365 days a year.

You can have a MAGA festival at the shut down border! Kid Rock! Ted Nugent! John Voight! Kanye West!

And all GOP can run on changing the cap to 365 days a year. = Lapsody

-------------

Meanwhile the crafty way the bill is worded, the democrats don't have to run on raising the cap since it will self destruct anyway. Shrewd..

And what is amazing the democrats have masterfully characterized the impasse over the Senate Bill as the fault of Republicans.

Because it is. Specifically, House Republicans. More specifically than that, the vocal minority "Freedom Caucus", and some MAGA people (of which there is significant overlap between the two). There is a Dem coalition that also hates this bill, but they aren't large enough to make much difference. So we can safely ignore them. And the real big problem is that Johnson likely won't even bring it to the floor for a vote, and that's ONE man, who happens to be Republican.

So, yeah...it's the fault of the Republicans.

Meanwhile the crafty way the bill is worded, the democrats don't have to run on raising the cap since it will self destruct anyway. Shrewd..

Nothing crafty about it, that's what sunsets are for. Evidently there's a large enough block within the party to cause that to be an issue. I was unaware of that. The problem that we really have is that laws made in 1951 don't serve us well today. But if this bill gets passed, I predict we're going to have to revisit those caps and the sunset.

And what is amazing the democrats have masterfully characterized the impasse over the Senate Bill as the fault of Republicans.

Because it is and YOU are part of it. You came out here whining that we were getting rid of Trump's best campaign issue.

I mean, fercryinoutloud, this should be like Christmas for you guys.

Are you kidding? Trump said NO, so they have to say no, too. That's it. That is all. The good of the country does not count, only Trump.

Very cultish.

Meanwhile the crafty way the bill is worded, the democrats don't have to run on raising the cap since it will self destruct anyway. Shrewd..

Do you really think that the Dems are "pulling a fast one" on the likes of McConnell? Seriously?? The Rep senators know what is in it, what it does (and doesn't do), and they can live with it. As albaby said, it gives Dems essentially nothing except Ukraine aid. McConnell would have enjoyed making the Dems choke on this bill. "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

MAGA is making at least some on the Dem side very happy that this bill is going to die. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Oh, and can you tell me how much money is there for an actual wall?

I hope not much because it is a stupid idea and of little value in controlling the border. Yes, it made a lot of money for Republican crony contractors...otherwise, pretty worthless. The same amount of money could be used much better with border patrol and other more effective innovations. We have a wall because Trump said 'wall' at a rally and got a big cheer. That's it.

I was just at the border a little east of Douglas, AZ at the San Bernadino Wildlife Refuge. I walked to the wall and there was a heavy metal door that was WIDE open. I have photos. What's the point? All along the wall there are sensors and cameras and those are probably much more effective than the expensive and destructive wall itself.

>>Meanwhile the crafty way the bill is worded, the democrats don't have to run on raising the cap since it will self destruct anyway. Shrewd..<<

Nothing crafty about it, that's what sunsets are for. Evidently there's a large enough block within the party to cause that to be an issue. I was unaware of that. The problem that we really have is that laws made in 1951 don't serve us well today. But if this bill gets passed, I predict we're going to have to revisit those caps and the sunset. - Lapsody

--------------

Despite any urge to revise it under a Trump admin, any revision can be easily blocked in the Senate, where despite gains in 2024, the repubs won't have 60.

So pass this now and the burden (to revise) will be on the repubs, where-as the dems get what they want (sunset the caps) by doing nothing. Advantage dems... like I said, shrewd.

But I should also add "naive", if they assumed this solution will be seen as just so gosh darned effective, it will obvious that these new authorities will be unnecessary in a few years, so lets just go ahead and set an expiration date now.

I live in AZ. Phoenix area.

There was a program several years ago (actually, more than a decade now). Even at that time they had almost complete border monitoring, and knew when people were crossing. Their issue was manpower to do anything about it (i.e. funding). I'm sure the tech has improved considerably since then. A wall is next to useless. As albaby has said, there are only limited stretches where you could even build a wall. And those stretches already have barriers.

Well, it's already moot. If Johnson doesn't entertain the bill, it dies. And he's apparently a MAGA-head, bowing before Trump. So it won't happen.

That just means more asylum-seekers in our future, released into the country to await hearing dates of up to four years. Meanwhile, they'll likely have babies while they're waiting...bouncing baby citizens whom cannot be deported (because they're, ya know, citizens). And no law can change that, because that is in the Constitution. Requires an actual amendment to change that one.

Not Biden, not Trump, not Haley, not anyone can change that by decree. This bill was the only chance, maybe for another generation...maybe even for the rest of my lifetime, given how politics work. The Reps had leverage, and they're frittering it away. I guess no skin off my nose.

I'm sure the progressive wing of the Dems is very happy.

Uhhh...I think there's a misconception. We can't just revise the 1951 convention. It is also known as the 1951 Geneva Convention. A treaty among many nations. I suppose the US could just pull out of it, which would be a reckless act that would strain alliances and friendships to the exteme. But you can't just unilaterally change it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_....

Are you kidding? Trump said NO, so they have to say no, too. That's it. That is all. The good of the country does not count, only Trump.

Very cultish. - ges

----------------

The last MAGA newsletter said detractors would say this and that we should try to keep a straight face as we repeat "It is a bad bill, and rejecting it has nothing to do with retaining a campaign issue."

Now, I don't really understand all those big words or what the fuss is all about, but since Trump tells me what to say and think, so I don't have to worry about it and can get back to cleaning my guns.

bighairymike: Meanwhile the crafty way the bill is worded, the democrats don't have to run on raising the cap since it will self destruct anyway. Shrewd.

Umm. Year one: the border can be closed for up to nine months.

Year two: the border can be closed for up to seven-and-one-half months.

Year three: the border can be closed for up to six months.

Wow, now there's a dream come true for democrats, especially the progressive wing of the party.

After three years, the worst that can happen for republicans is we go back to exactly what we have now. But you've had three years of drastic border closures in the meantime. Kill the bill now and you have lost up to 25 and 1/2 months of closed borders.

I cannot believe republicans are this stupid and this far deep in the cult of Trump.

If Trump had gotten this deal when he was president, republicans would have carried him around the streets of DC on a lectica, Fox would have been running the closures on chyrons 24-hours a day and Trump would be calling himself the bigly genius who out-foxed the idiot democrats.

There is nothing in this bill for democrats and a ton of provisions republicans have wanted forever.

Killing this bill is Jonestown-level cultishly moronic.

But here we are.

Again, no. That's a violation of international law and our treaty obligations</I/.

LOL. So the US border is completely meaningless. That’s your argument, per international law.

Do you really think that the Dems are "pulling a fast one" on the likes of McConnell?

They’re pulling a fast one *with* Mitch McConnell.

Despite any urge to revise it under a Trump admin, any revision can be easily blocked in the Senate, where despite gains in 2024, the repubs won't have 60.

This. As Insaid, this bill in addition to be useless and bad policy was always designed to trip the next President up in 3 years. That’s clear as day.

If the Bill will improve all the things that proponents claim, then why on earth did they include a three year sunset or steadily declining caps on the number of shutdown days allowed?

This is a compromise deal: a temporary change in laws in exchange for a temporary change in funding levels. Permanent policy changes are much more valuable than funding that needs to be renewed every year. Ukraine will need security assistance for years, and each year Congress can negotiate deals based around the needed funding. Permanent policy changes will not be traded for temporary funding. Make this year's deal and move on. There will be another deal next year. Or not. Probably not with this do-nothing Congress. They like the way things are. No changes needed.


Our southern border issue used to be folks coming for work from Mexico, not asylum-seekers looking to resettle from the Central Triangle and elsewhere.

Between 2021 and 2023, the number of folks coming from Mexico was about the same (about 700k per year), but the number from Venezuela, Other, Colombia, and Cuba sharply increased. The number from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador decreased.

The sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba have had effect. People will go where the jobs are, and the U.S. has plenty of jobs today.


When it sunsets, do we get our Ukraine money back?

The U.S. has provided about $22B per year in security assistance to Ukraine in the 2 years since 2022. The U.S. Defense Budget is $766B. If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, Putin might continue to try to reassemble the U.S.S.R., with NATO countries next on his list. The next war might involve U.S. soldiers. Spending less than 3% of the Defense Budget to discourage Putin is money well spent. We don't get any of this back, it is just the cost of living in this world.

==== data ====
FY Nationwide Encounters
data from https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-enco...

  citizenship      FY2021   pctFY2021    FY2022     FY2023   pctFY2023    change   change/totalFY2021
     total       1,956,519    100%     2,766,582  3,201,144    100%     1,244,625          64%
    Mexico         674,739     34%       823,057    735,937     23%        61,198          3%
   Venezuela        50,499      3%       189,520    334,914     10%       284,415          15%
   Guatemala       284,291     15%       233,061    221,849      7%       -62,442          -3%
    Honduras       321,149     16%       214,975    216,028      7%      -105,121          -5%
     Other          57,357      3%       137,328    299,575      9%       242,218          12%
    Colombia        10,495      1%       130,971    167,388      5%       156,893          8%
      Cuba          39,303      2%       224,607    200,287      6%       160,984          8%
    Ecuador         97,074      5%        24,936    117,487      4%        20,413          1%
   Nicaragua        50,722      3%       164,600    138,729      4%        88,007          4%
     Haiti          48,727      2%        56,596    163,781      5%       115,054          6%
      Peru           5,177      0%        53,188     78,202      2%        73,025          4%
  El Salvador       99,463      5%        97,797     62,846      2%       -36,617          -2%
    Russia          13,240      1%        36,271     57,163      2%        43,923          2%
not listed here    204,283     10%       379,675    406,958     13%       202,675          10%

==== links ====

The US Labor Market Explains Most of the Increase in Illegal Immigration, November 16, 2023
https://www.cato.org/blog/us-labor-market-explains...

"From 2021 to 2023,
The three nationalities that saw the largest aggregate increases in migration:
Venezuela +217,393
“Other Countries” not specifically named in CBP’s data releases +155,007
Colombia +153,334
...
The three nationalities that saw the largest aggregate decreases in migration:
Honduras -105,638
Guatemala -62,950
El Salvador -37,175"
https://adamisacson.com/annual-cbp-migrant-encount...

"migrants from Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador are trying to enter the country. "Parts of the world, especially Latin America, haven't recovered from the pandemic and their economies have worsened and some governments have been dictatorial as of late.""
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09...

"If the Senate Dems cannot face up to lasting border control, then maybe waiting to see what Trump will do is a better alternative. "

LOL. How many times are you going to get fooled?

Remember when your political masters made you hate Obamacare? Trump came along and promised you that he could do better. Oddly enough, he never did come up with anything better. He suckered you.

Remember when your political masters made you hate the Iranian nuclear weapons treaty that would delay Iran from getting nuclear weapons for a decade by forcing them to submit themselves to monitoring? Trump then came into office and backed out of the deal and said he could have negotiated a better deal. Oddly enough, he never did come up with anything better. He suckered you.

Now remember when Trump promised that he was going to build a huge wall and get Mexico to pay for it? That this would have done nothing to help with the real problem of tens of thousands of migrants seeking asylum at ports of entry, is beside the point. He was going to have his big, beautiful wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. Then oddly enough, even with having the majorities in both the House and the Senate, Trump was never able to do such a thing. He suckered you again.

Apparently some people like getting suckered.

What do you think Trump will be able to do that:
a.) Is better than this bill which gives Republicans 75% of what they want on immigration and like 5% to what Democrats want.
b.) Can pass a narrowly divided house that may or may not be under Republican control.
c.) Can muster up 60 votes in the Senate.

Even more, this little thought exercise assumes Trump wins the presidency. If he loses (and he tend to lose a lot), it could be another 4 years of having a Democratic president and any immigration reform that would have to be signed by him.

This is probably the absolute best chance Republicans who actually care about immigration reform are going to get. They are going to punt it away because Trump needs something to campaign on.

I think this bill has made it quite clear which Republicans have continually been yelling "Catastrophe!!! at the southern border" because they genuinely thought there was a catastrophe at the southern border and which Republicans were yelling it because it was a good polling issue for them. Over the last year there are literally dozens of Republicans speaking on tape about how something needs to be done immediately at the southern border. When Republicans were doing their political dog and pony show by passing the unserious HB2, so many of them were yelling that their bill was desperately needed to do something right away. Now that it looks like something might get done and a large part of HB2 will get implemented, many Republicans are suddenly saying, "Let's wait until the next election to fix the border". It is clear who yells about border security because they believe it is a problem and who yells because it is a campaign issue. It is also telling how fast the cultists changed their tune as well.

Why were they lying to you before about the severity of the catastrophe on the border? And why are you so eager to lap up what they are feeding you now?

You have posts on this very board for over a year regularly talking about how border reform was an immediate problem. Now you are willing to wait because your political masters are telling you to. Sad.

Despite any urge to revise it under a Trump admin, any revision can be easily blocked in the Senate, where despite gains in 2024, the repubs won't have 60.

You have three years, a narrowed version of asylum criteria that will be permanent, an increase in border agents that should be permanent, and a much larger, functioning, processing system that reduces the wait to ~6 months, with the narrower criteria. Pretty good.

So pass this now and the burden (to revise) will be on the repubs, where-as the dems get what they want (sunset the caps) by doing nothing. Advantage dems... like I said, shrewd.

Look, there may be no need to revise the way we think now, it could be something totally different. We have to see how it works. It is much much better than doing nothing. Here's what might happen. Trump loses, gets convicted and goes to jail. No money is passed for Ukrain. America loses trust on the world stage and it is reflect by trade partners and allies shoring up agreements with other countries to rely less on the US. America's no longer considered leader of the free world. We still have problems with high encounters, the laws still have never been changed. Historians later say that this was the watershed for American decline, the beginning of America's descent.


But I should also add "naive", if they assumed this solution will be seen as just so gosh darned effective, it will obvious that these new authorities will be unnecessary in a few years, so lets just go ahead and set an expiration date now.
You know what a democracy is? I'm used to never getting what I want, so I just look for some progress. Here it is, take it or leave it, but when you leave it realize America's decline starts with you leaving it.

You have three years, a narrowed version of asylum criteria that will be permanent, an increase in border agents that should be permanent, and a much larger, functioning, processing system that reduces the wait to ~6 months, with the narrower criteria. Pretty good.

That reduces the wait on new entrants. Does nothing to address the massive backlog of cases that are already here.

Mike's right. The sunset is a poison pill.

Dope1That reduces the wait on new entrants.

You mean that it expedites the removal of unqualified asylum seekers, don't you?

Dope1: Does nothing to address the massive backlog of cases that are already here.

Of course it does... it hires additional resources to process those already here faster.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Dope1: Mike's right. The sunset is a poison pill.

Mike is too stupid to know how to count votes.

Why wouldn't there be a sunset provision? If it works, Congress easily renews it, and if it fails, they rewrite legislation based on what they've learned over three years.

Lots of legislation has a sunset clause; it's not unusual and certainly not a poison pill.

Republicans have completely lost their minds.

LOL. So the US border is completely meaningless. That’s your argument, per international law.

What are you talking about? Agreeing not to expel refugees doesn't render the border completely meaningless - in the U.S. or anywhere else in the every country on earth (more or less) that has agreed to abide by the 1951 convention.

That reduces the wait on new entrants. Does nothing to address the massive backlog of cases that are already here.

You also had both the increase in immigration law judges and the shift in processing of many cases out of the immigration courts into an administrative process. Both of which would have significantly cut into that backlog.

But now...you have nothing. No changes to the law. Which means that even if Trump were to be put in office tomorrow, there would still be that huge backlog (he lacks the authority to expel the asylees and lacks the resources to detain them). So no improvement at all.

- in the U.S. or anywhere else in the every country on earth (more or less) that has agreed to abide by the 1951 convention. - albaby

-------------------

So, this is similar to the Paris Climate Accords. Almost every country agrees to the noble cause, when in reality it is the Western economies bearing the burden and flowing dollars to third world countries for them to modernize.

Here, the noble cause is these asylum seekers from around the world. At that 1951 convention, I am sure the participants were well aware where the refugee flow would head to. Sure, Somalia, for example, would easily agree since no refugee ever wants to head there. Same with most of third world, sign up for the 1951 treaty, there is no downside.

So, back to point at hand, that more-or-less every country has agreed to the convention is not surprising and is not supportive of the idea that a good idea 70 years ago is perpetual.

Like the Paris Accords, however noble the cause, we are not obliged, and as a sovereign nation, we have every right to control our border. Not only the right, but his year more than ever, the American people are expecting our leaders to assert that right.

Like the Paris Accords, however noble the cause, we are not obliged, and as a sovereign nation, we have every right to control our border. Not only the right, but his year more than ever, the American people are expecting our leaders to assert that right.

Of course. Again, the obligations of the 1951 Convention do not require countries to give up their right to "control their border." We're simply prohibited from returning legitimate refugees to the country they're legitimately in danger returning to - and to provide a modicum of due process to people to make sure they have a meaningful opportunity to establish those claims. You don't have to nationalize them, you can keep them detained indefinitely, you can send them out of your country to any other country that will agree to take them. You can't just expel them without a hearing. That's not ceding control of your border, despite the maximalist claims of some border hawks.

We're simply prohibited ... albaby

--------------

Who exactly is doing that prohibiting?

Who exactly is doing that prohibiting?

We are. We agreed that we wouldn't do it. We have entered into a binding international treaty that prohibits those actions. We said we wouldn't do it, and ratified that agreement in a treaty.

Yes, we have the power to breach that treaty, and take the consequences. Because of the way international law works, those consequences would not come through a formal enforcement action by a superior body. They would take the form of making it more difficult to achieve our goals and advance our interests through international agreements and cooperation on other matters. But they're no less real because of that. If you break your treaties, you pay a price - which is why most countries try very hard not to break their treaty obligations, and why they take the language of such treaties (and the decision whether to enter into them) very seriously.

So we’re held hostage to the likes of this guy:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/palestinian-migrant-who...

Palestinian migrant who arrived via Mexico allegedly beat homeowner over his support for Israel: video
Bechir Lehbeib entered the US through Mexico and made an asylum claim months before allegedly beating NY man over his support for Israel

Charming.
International law says we have to take every one of these guys, eh?

International law says we have to take every one of these guys, eh?

Nope. Just that you have to give him due process to establish whether he meets the definition of a refugee. If he doesn't, you can expel him immediately. If he does, you can confine him to a refugee camp or send him to whatever other country will take him. You don't have to let him move freely throughout the country - you just can't send him back into the threat of torture or death that he's fled from.

Every country has to deal with people who commit crimes. Whether they're native-born or refugees, in any sufficiently large group of people you will end up with some proportion of them that will commit crimes. The fact that some members of a group will commit crimes doesn't really justify depriving the entire group (again, native-born or refugees) a minimal level of basic human rights, due process, and protection from death or torture.

Republicans have completely lost their minds.

Their support of Trump is proof of that.

>>Who exactly is doing that prohibiting?<<

We are. We agreed that we wouldn't do it. We have entered into a binding international treaty that prohibits those actions. We said we wouldn't do it, and ratified that agreement in a treaty. - albaby

--------------

Does that treaty oblige us to process as many as show up?

It seems we should be within our rights to specify a limit on the intake rate.

The Border Bill is an example of us doing that. We did not have to ask the Geneva Convention if 5,000 a day is OK with them.

Like the Paris Accords, however noble the cause, we are not obliged, and as a sovereign nation, we have every right to control our border. Not only the right, but his year more than ever, the American people are expecting our leaders to assert that right.

But the Republicans won't take the action needed because it will take away a campaign issue for the orange jesus.

Does that treaty oblige us to process as many as show up?

Yes, for people who present a prima facie claim that they meet the criteria. Just like the constitution obliges us to provide a trial to as many people commit crimes, the 1951 Convention guarantees refugees at least a fair hearing to make their case that they are genuinely and legitimately fleeing persecution that meets the international standard.

It's annoying and cumbersome to provide basic due process to people - to give a fair hearing to their claims. But it's a bare minimum obligation of basic humanity and decency, that someone is given at least one chance to make an argument on their behalf to someone with authority. This isn't Judge Dredd - even people that have obviously and irrefutably broken the law aren't dispensed summary justice on the street, but are entitled to have a process by which their guilt is determined. The same is true of one's status as an asylee (or any other claim that they should not be immediately deported). Just like the beat cop doesn't get to make the final decision on a suspect's guilt right there on the sidewalk, the Border Patrol agent doesn't get to make the final decision on someone's status right there on the bank of the river. They get to make their argument at a hearing.

You have three years, a narrowed version of asylum criteria that will be permanent, an increase in border agents that should be permanent, and a much larger, functioning, processing system that reduces the wait to ~6 months, with the narrower criteria. Pretty good.

That reduces the wait on new entrants. Does nothing to address the massive backlog of cases that are already here.

Mike's right. The sunset is a poison pill.

I don't think it takes much intelligence to realize the new expanded system will be dealing with the backlog, so saying it "does nothing" is self-serving crap.

As for poison pill - you live in a DEMOCRACY. When I said before that the bill comes out, we take a look at it, then hold our noses and pass it, I really F'n meant that! Burn it into your brain that a democracy means WE DON"T GET EVERYTHING WE WANT.

Everything's a trade off, look around, perhaps Hungary has the borders you want and you can go live there. And I do mean that literally, not being sarcastic one bit.

Do I like the sunset - no - I think it should be 10 years, but I don't get what I want, do I. Just remember, we were founded on people escaping. I have no problems at all with someone who will be likely killed in his/her own country coming here. But not if living conditions are just tough. We can't take everyone.

Nope. Just that you have to give him due process to establish whether he meets the definition of a refugee. If he doesn't, you can expel him immediately. If he does, you can confine him to a refugee camp or send him to whatever other country will take him. You don't have to let him move freely throughout the country - you just can't send him back into the threat of torture or death that he's fled from.

So why are we letting hundreds of thousand of them run around freely?

So, this is similar to the Paris Climate Accords. Almost every country agrees to the noble cause, when in reality it is the Western economies bearing the burden and flowing dollars to third world countries for them to modernize.

Jeebus H Krist, Mike.... Massive migrations are happening on all continents for the same reasons: poverty, crime, violence.

See: Africa

See: Europe

See: Asia

Dope: So why are we letting hundreds of thousand of them run around freely?

Those 'hundreds of thousands' are not represented by the few bad apples you supporters of a fraudulent orange rapist cherrypick anymore than Kyle Rittenhouse and Tinmothy McVeigh are representative of Dope and BHM.

What are you talking about?

Your kids are lucky to have such a patient father. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

Makes me no-nevermind. As I've said before, this doesn't even break my top 5 priorities. We can continue as-is, and I won't notice. It's a terrible way to go, and will infuriate the right to no end. But they asked for it. Asylees waiting in the country for up to four years? Whatever...at least they aren't kept in pens.

Not only the right, but his year more than ever, the American people are expecting our leaders to assert that right.

They tried. Trump said "no", and people like Johnson said "yes, sir". It's both amusing, and sad. It is highly unlikely you'll see a better deal (from the Republican standpoint) within your lifetime (assuming you're roughly as old as I am).

So why are we letting hundreds of thousand of them run around freely?

Because we haven't appropriated funds sufficient to detain hundreds of thousands of asylees.

To again borrow an analogy from the criminal justice system, a jurisdiction might have the theoretical ability to deny bail or pre-trial release to anyone who is arrested. But if you deny pre-trial release, you have to have somewhere to put them - and pay to feed and clothe and supervise them. If you don't provide enough space to keep all of them locked up pending the hearing, then you have to provide pre-trial release to everyone you don't have a space for.

The size of the population "running around freely" is a function of a number of factors - how many folks have made asylum claims, how many get dismissed before being adjudicated, how long it takes to get them adjudicated, and how much detention space is available. The proposed bill would have responded to the increase in claims by improving all of the last three factors. It would have tightened the criteria for the summary dismissal (the credible fear criteria would become stricter), it would have shortened the time to adjudication (by increasing the number of immigration judges and shifting many cases into a faster administrative process), and it would have increased the detention capacity of the system.

Congress absolutely has the power to build tons of refugee detention camps, and feed and clothe and house and provide medical treatment and guard these folks pending their hearings. But just like we don't fill up the jails with countless ordinary people who are awaiting trials for run-of-the-mill criminal violations, it just doesn't make sense to pay for all that.

So, this is similar to the Paris Climate Accords. Almost every country agrees to the noble cause, when in reality it is the Western economies bearing the burden and flowing dollars to third world countries for them to modernize.

Mike, who benefited most from causing climate change?

Here, the noble cause is these asylum seekers from around the world. At that 1951 convention, I am sure the participants were well aware where the refugee flow would head to. Sure, Somalia, for example, would easily agree since no refugee ever wants to head there. Same with most of third world, sign up for the 1951 treaty, there is no downside.

Mike, the problem we have now arose in the last 10-15 years. So we had 55 years before the problem arose.

Trump said "no", and people like Johnson said "yes, sir".

Johnson's declaration came out before Trump's. If you're going to insult others about not knowing things, it's best to make sure you're up to speed first.

I'll also implore you not to act like a bunch of others here do.

I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw as a teen. I think it was by Benson (a then-local paper cartoonist). Right after Reagan was elected. It was three panels. The first was a bunch of suits with scowls on their faces demanding something (I forget what) of Reagan. The second was Reagan saying "OK". The third was the scowling suits yelling "Oh yeah?!".

Reps wanted more controls over the border, they got them (virtually nothing Dems wanted), and now they're saying "oh yeah?!" as if it were a threat. MAGA is indeed a corrosive influence. Hopefully it dies with Trump, whenever he finally dies.

I'm pretty sure Johnson was in a "wait and see", and then Trump said (without knowing a thing about it) -paraphrasing- "we shouldn't take the deal" (later admitting it was for political reasons to deny Biden a perceived victory), and then Johnson sided with Trump.

Ironically, this has now given Biden an opening to turn it back on the Reps. Of course, the Dems are really clumsy at that. But Trump may just have turned a campaign weakness of Biden into a strength.

Not sure what you mean about acting like others. I try to refrain from ad-homs, but I will call out stupid behavior when I see it (while not calling any person on this board 'stupid'). I just frownie someone if I feel there signal-to-noise is near-zero, rather than polluting the board with personal invectives. So far one person has achieved that.

Dope1: Johnson's declaration came out before Trump's.

Link?

I see reporting that Johnson spoke privately with republicans on January 15 about the bill but nothing in the public record other than that he doubted he would support the senate bill. Trump came out on Truth Social on January 17 against the bill.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111...

Dope: I'll also implore you not to act like a bunch of others here do.

You do enough insulting. I'd implore you not to think or act like all those people I have in the frowny face.

It is highly unlikely you'll see a better deal (from the Republican standpoint) within your lifetime (assuming you're roughly as old as I am). - 1pg

---------------

heh, well there, you young whippersnapper, you aren't even old enough to have experienced feeding Jane Fonda to the whales.

Reps wanted more controls over the border, they got them (virtually nothing Dems wanted), and now they're saying "oh yeah?!" as if it were a threat. MAGA is indeed a corrosive influence. Hopefully it dies with Trump, whenever he finally dies.

Mueller reports 42 no votes in the Senate,so it's dead. Trump killed it. Now, can we get funding for Ukraine? I care more about that.

Mike, the problem we have now arose in the last 10-15 years. So we had 55 years before the problem arose. - Lapsody

-------------------

Generally, I agree with your time line, and the venerable 1951 agreement did serve us well for 55 years. But, times are changing and new realities must be addressed.

I'm pretty sure Johnson was in a "wait and see",

No, on that Saturday he said it was DOA and for the Senate to not bother to send it to the House. Trump didn't comment until later.

"LOL. So the US border is completely meaningless. That’s your argument, per international law."

Just an FYI, you failed at comprehension again. Following the international treaties the U.S. has signed and ratified does NOT render the U.S. border meaningless. You are completely failing to understand what he is telling you.

I don't remember encountering that, doesn't mean I'm not old enough to have done so. I do remember "nuke the whales". Saw those bumper stickers a lot for a while.

I'm over 60 now. At best I can expect another 30 years. In that time, you almost certainly will not see a deal that -as a Republican- you will like better, or even as well.

Now, can we get funding for Ukraine? I care more about that.

Me too. The ramifications are far more profound.

But MAGA is pro-Putin, so I don't think we'll get anything. Ukraine is going to have to rely on the EU.

But, times are changing and new realities must be addressed.

They tried. MAGA killed it. No new realities will be addressed likely for at least another generation. Probably longer.

"When it sunsets, do we get our Ukraine money back?"

It should be noted that this is another misrepresentation on the right about Ukraine spending.

First of all, much of the Ukraine spending is actually a refresh of U.S. military supplies. We send Ukraine the old stuff that has been sitting around for decades and build newer, more modern stuff to replace it. For example, a few weeks ago my wife and I bought a new to us (2021 model) $35,000 car. We gave our really old (2012 model) car to my nephew. So while we certainly spent $35,000 on a new car and that is reflected in our budget spending, it isn't like we gave our nephew a $35,000 car. We gave him one worth far less. We benefitted greatly from that $35,000 car expenditure just like the U.S. military benefits greatly from the money spent on Ukraine. The U.S. military now has newer, better missiles that can be fired from our HIMARS systems than the ones we had before the spending. It isn't like the U.S. is just giving $60 billion dollars in military stuff to Ukraine. The U.S. is benefiting as well.

Second of all, much of the Ukraine spending is spent building up U.S. capacity to produce weapons. Right now if the U.S. got into a shooting war with a near peer army the U.S. would run out of shells, missiles, bombs, and bullets within a few weeks. Due to decades of not engaging in any conflicts other than police actions, the capacity to build munitions in the U.S. has withered. It was hard to justify building new munitions when we had so many sitting in storage, so production lines closed. Some of the spending in this bill actually opens up new lines to produce shells. It is useless to have all of these nice high tech fighter planes, artillery, drones, submarines, and carriers, if you can't build enough munitions fast enough to actually arm them in a real conflict.

Third of all, nearly all of that spending goes right back here into the U.S. economy. It goes to pay the production line workers producing the new munitions right here in the U.S.

Fourth (and most importantly) of all, when the bill sunsets the immigration part, we will still be benefiting greatly from the money spent on Ukraine. Russia's military has been devastated in Ukraine. Most of the military advances they now making are done through brute force instead of military superiority. They just send in more troops knowing they will mostly get slaughtered but a few will survive and capture territory. It is also starting to have a negative effect on Russia's economy. Money isn't being spent on investing in infrastructure, and such. Furthermore, the mounting war casualties are becoming a huge production drain on Russia's economy. When a 25 year old conscripted Russian soldier is killed in Ukraine, that means he isn't back home doing something economically productive (like growing grain, building a car, or programming a computer). This will have long term consequences for Russia's economy. The longer that Ukraine can keep up their defenses, the more Russia will suffer and will be unable to rebuild its military.

Devastating the military and economy of one of the nation's most dangerous enemies is quite valuable. Having Russia's military crippled now in Ukraine means that the U.S. won't have to do it in the future when Putin invades one of the NATO Baltic states. It would be far more expensive in money and U.S. lives defending NATO then supporting Ukraine.

>>"When it sunsets, do we get our Ukraine money back?"<<

It should be noted that this is another misrepresentation on the right about Ukraine spending. - Umm

---------------

In my defense, I was being a little snarly and mainly poling at the sunset provision the border bill which still makes no sense to me but that is for another thread.

I pretty much agree with your observation about the Ukraine funding going to modernizing US
stockpiles and re-establishing domestic weapons production, if that is in fact how the bulk of that funding is used.

However I have heard reports that we and the EU are more or less paying for the operations of the entire government, ie payroll for civil servants, and that large sums have been earmarked for pensions for top Ukranian officials.

In my defense, I was being a little snarly and mainly poling at the sunset provision the border bill which still makes no sense to me but that is for another thread

------------------

Well some typos are just plain funny, snarly works but I meant snarky... also a sunset provision cannot be poled.

corrected,

In my defense, I was being a little snarky and mainly poking at the sunset provision in the border bill which still makes no sense to me but that is for another thread

I pretty much agree with your observation about the Ukraine funding going to modernizing US
stockpiles and re-establishing domestic weapons production, if that is in fact how the bulk of that funding is used.

It's not quite that simple. We're sending stockpiles of completed weapons over there for the Ukrainians to use and providing them training. The lefties get that much right, but then don't go any deeper.

When you think about it a little more, you might ask, "So do we have infinite stockpiles to give away?" and the answer is NO.

Witness
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/01/24/us-army-...

The effort began in 2017 at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP) as part of the Stinger Service Life Extension Program.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine intensified the effort, with the service approving funds for the refurbishment of 2,700 obsolete missiles in the summer of 2022 to bolster the active inventory.

Program Executive Office, Missiles and Space, and MCAAP were funded for the task, with an early estimate of refurbishing 1,100 missiles (approximately 40 percent).

MCAAP, however, has exceeded the early estimate with the refurbishment of 70 percent of the missiles four months ahead of the proposed 16-month schedule.

Stinger Developments
Meanwhile, the US Army has awarded Raytheon a contract to produce 1,300 Stingers to replenish the missiles sent to Ukraine.

What happens if we need them? In their zeal to get on board with something that Biden wants they tend to forget that we have an army that needs stuff also.

If one cared to think deeper, one might ask about US ammo production. That's a thread in and of itself. Bottom line: Don't take any static from them.

Devastating the military and economy of one of the nation's most dangerous enemies is quite valuable.

--------------------

Another point politicians need to practice hammering home in concise sound bytes.

American's military spending to support Ukraine against Russia is literally THE single most effective expenditure of money on actual military goals since D-Day. There has been no higher percentage of spending on the part of the US for "military" uses that has actually destroyed a higher percentage of verifiable military capability of an enemy as our supplying of Ukraine. Without a SINGLE American life being risked to do it.

Beyond THAT aspect, it is highlighting to the entire world what a charade Putin's conventional military capabilities really are, making more countries reluctant to partner with him, it's crippling the Russian economy making it vastly more difficult for them to rebuild the military or modernize it or invest in anything else and it is serving as a proving ground for new technologies which also informs US policymakers of future dangers with our legacy capabilities, again without risking a single American soldier. We're getting all of learning benefits of an active war regarding our gear and capabilities without putting up any American lives to do it. That's a very crass, calculating comment but it's the truth.

There is no higher return on military investment the US can make right now in achieving our defense goals than continuing to support Ukraine. Anyone who thinks we need to withdraw military support is clearly supporting Putin and another 20 years of destabilization throughout Europe which will cost America far more to fix than containing the damage where its at and focusing it on Russia.


WTH

The number of refugees granted U.S. asylum is low: about 25 thousand in 2022, and about 25 thousand on average between 1990 and 2021. (There is an annual cap agreed on between Congress and the President.) Since the passage of the Refugee Act in 1980, the United States has admitted about 76 thousand refugees per year on average. There were about 29 million refugees worldwide in 2022, with most from Syria, Ukraine, and Afganistan.

The number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S has not changed much since 2004, but the number of border encounters is at record highs. In 2022, there were about 1.6 million people waiting for U.S. asylum hearings.

=== links ===
Annual Flow Report NOVEMBER 2023 Refugees and Asylees: 2022
"A total of 25,519 persons were admitted to the United States as refugees during 2022, including 9,012 as principal refugees and 16,507 as derivative accompanying refugees."
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/20...

How many people seek asylum in the US?, July 13, 2023
"Between 1990 and 2021, the US admitted 767,950 asylum seekers into the country. In 2021 alone, the US admitted 17,692 asylees, a 42.9% drop from the year before, and the lowest year since 1994."
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-seek...

What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S., November 16, 2023
"The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2021 remained below its peak of 12.2 million in 2007. It was about the same size as in 2004 and lower than every year from 2005 to 2015."
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/16...

A Sober Assessment of the Growing U.S. Asylum Backlog, Dec 22, 2022
"The latest available data reveal that the number of asylum seekers waiting for asylum hearings in the U.S. has now reached at least 1,565,966 individuals."
https://trac.syr.edu/reports/705/

You are correct about the ammo. But the hardware is being brought out of mothballs, most of it was never going to be used again. Old versions of tanks, AFVs, etc. They saved us the cost of storing and -eventually- scrapping them. The lion's share of the dollars quoted is the accounting value of that hardware.

But, yes...new equipment largely uses the same ammo as the old. NATO standard shells, etc. We will need to produce more. Which is good for jobs, obviously. And corporate bottom-lines.

What happens if we need them? By tying-up Russia in Ukraine, we reduce the likelihood that we will need them. Russia is too occupied to stir-up trouble elsewhere, and their military is getting weaker by the day. Readiness has gone way down.

The ramifications if Russia is able to force Ukraine to accept a crappy deal (which is more likely now) would be far-reaching and very negative for future peace in the world, and Europe.

heh, well there, you young whippersnapper, you aren't even old enough to have experienced feeding Jane Fonda to the whales.

Don't you have RMDs? You may be ancient. Do Texans get that ancient?

Don't you have RMDs? You may be ancient. Do Texans get that ancient?

=================

Yep, this was the first RMD year for me, and next year will be the last. As far as being an ancient Texan, I think of it as being weathered...

Yep, this was the first RMD year for me, and next year will be the last. As far as being an ancient Texan, I think of it as being weathered...
I'm just old. I bought a house here and have been working on it ever since. Someone should've warned me. :)

BMH
However I have heard reports that we and the EU are more or less paying for the operations of the entire government, ie payroll for civil servants, and that large sums have been earmarked for pensions for top Ukranian officials.

Yes, we help pay the first responders, hospitals, some of the officials, and the pensioners who can't move. I don't see how that's an "however" though. The EU contributes twice as much as we do. War is already enough chaos.

Once, the Republicans used the excuse of exporting Democracy to invade Iraq in GW2 under the Neocons. Now, no one's a Neocon. "We'll be there for twenty years," some whispered in our ears as we marched off thinking we could reshape the Middle East. We spent trillions.

Now, we're just trying to retain a Democracy, and return a peace, and the old War Hawks are now questioning every line item expenditure. This is cheap and we don't have dead American soldiers, disabled and severely wounded, and PTSD - the silent destroyer. We're not fooled. Tomorrow you'll be rationalizing a turnabout and marching us off to war again.

Russia isn't the country we'd get into a shooting war with. Why would we? Over what?
They're a paper tiger who can't project power more that 30 miles over their borders. The US has had stealth aircraft for 40 years now while the Russians have maybe half a dozen Generation 4 and a half aircraft. Lockheed has built nearly 400 F-35s as of now and are cranking them out at a rate of 156 a year. Their Air Force, which can't establish air superiority over a country with little to no integrated air defense capability, would be eliminated in a hurry.

Putin's decimated the professional ranks of his army in terms of soldiers and top-of-the-line equipment. Their best stuff is already being picked apart by NATO analysts to see how it works (or doesn't). As for armor, the Ukrainians have blown up or captured so many Russkie tanks that at one point they had more during the war than before it started.

Russia is not something to worry about no matter how many times they try to fly around the Alaska ADIZ. If they do anything, it will an asymmetric attack.

So who would we need ammo for? China. There are any number of potential flashpoints in the Pacific.

But...
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2022/0...

WASHINGTON — The United States has relied almost entirely on China — and to a lesser extent Russia — in recent years to procure a critical mineral that is vital to producing ammunition.

The mineral antimony is critical to the defense-industrial supply chain and is needed to produce everything from armor-piercing bullets and explosives to nuclear weapons as well as sundry other military equipment, such as night vision goggles.

Heavy metals and rare earth mineral production is dominated by China. There needs to be more mining in the US, and ASAP.

DRussia isn't the country we'd get into a shooting war with. Why would we? Over what?
They're a paper tiger who can't project power more that 30 miles over their borders.

We know that NOW. But.... Russia's GDP is 29% military hardware and they aren't shabby at missiles, drones, etc. If you would tone down and be serious, Putin thought military hardware and numbers overcomes incompetence and he didn't understand how incompetent his army had become. Neither did we.

DRussia is not something to worry about We know that NOW. But half the reason it looks that way is that we took Russia serously when we helped prep the Ukraine. We really didn't know that before.

DSo who would we need ammo for? China.
Possibly. And we should take it seriously. Can we handle two flashpoints and the Ukraine?

We know that NOW. But.... Russia's GDP is 29% military hardware and they aren't shabby at missiles, drones, etc. If you would tone down and be serious, Putin thought military hardware and numbers overcomes incompetence and he didn't understand how incompetent his army had become. Neither did we.


You need to look at their tactical and strategic position. Yes, that's a serious subject. Not sure why you don't think it is. Understanding strategic conflicts begin with understanding your adversary's goals, incentives and ability to project power.

What are Putin's goals? His goal is to re-unify what was once the Soviet Union and re-make them into a global power.

What are his incentives? His incentives are to solidify his power base by uniting his people under a nationalistic sense of pride for Mother Russia. Would distract from any problems in their real lives - this was how the Soviet Union worked - further helping him keep power.

What is their ability to project power? Abysmal. They can't even subdue a lightly armed neighbor, much less face NATO.

Having said all that, should be blow them off? No. NATO nations should have military readiness in case Putin were to start something as a favor to China, who is the real adversary.

And we should take it seriously. Can we handle two flashpoints and the Ukraine?

No, and this is the crux of the ammo shortage. We need more ammo plants built with the ones we have running 24/7/365.

You almost made my case for me. "Ukrainians have blown up or captured so many Russkie tanks...". That was my point. By supporting Ukraine (a democracy) against Russia (a dictatorship) we lessen the chances of further war. The Ukrainians are depleting his resources, but he still has a lot of resources and industry. If he finishes with Ukraine, who's next? Poland? They are certainly worried about that, based on how much aid they are sending to Ukraine. Numerous former Soviet bloc countries are worried about that. And many of them are in NATO. By treaty, if Putin attacks any of them, we are obligated to send in the troops. Which means flag-draped US coffins. If Putin outlasts us, he wins. If we show resolve, he will be forced to the negotiating table in a much weaker position. Right now, he doesn't feel he has to give up anything to get peace. He'll just 'win'.

China also is a problem. I've been highlighting that for a while. We are highly unlikely to need our NATO standard 155mm shells for China. That will be centered around naval operations. China isn't eyeing (yet) Thailand for a land war, they're claiming they own the South China Sea and all it's islands.

Yes, I've always said we need a source of materials (both extracted and manufactured) that is independent of any potential enemy. Whether it's N95 masks, or lithium, or steel...we need domestic sources, or at least sources that regard us as allies.

That was my point. By supporting Ukraine (a democracy) against Russia (a dictatorship) we lessen the chances of further war. The Ukrainians are depleting his resources, but he still has a lot of resources and industry. If he finishes with Ukraine, who's next? Poland? They are certainly worried about that, based on how much aid they are sending to Ukraine.

All true - but the geopolitical importance of Ukraine is far more complicated than that.

Russia's interest in Ukraine is shaped by the geography of the region and the overwhelming value of having warm-water ports. Most of Russia is separated from most of the world by mountain ranges - the Urals and the Caucusus. The Urals separate eastern Russia from Europe, while the Caucuses are a barrier between Russia and the Middle East. But the rest of western Russia is easily accessible via land through the Great European Plain, which is a mountain-free region from the Urals all the way to France. So while eastern Russia is easily defended from Europe, western Russia (including Moscow) is not. So Russia is keenly interested in maintaining buffer states between it and Europe.

But perhaps more importantly, Russia lacks a western warm-water port. Which is why Russian rules back to Catherine the Great have fought for (and annexed) areas along the Black sea for the last three centuries and especially Crimea. Sure, they have access to the Sea of Azov - but the lengthy Kerch Strait separating it from the Black Sea is a serious defensive liability if another power holds the Crimean side. That's why Russia is intensely interested in Georgia as well, BTW, but Georgia's Black Sea ports start bumping into the northwestern end of the Caucuses range which makes them less valuable (both militarily and for commerce) than Sevastopol. But even Sevastopol has significant strategic vulnerabilities because Crimea is separated from Russia proper by the Kerch, so Russia desperately wants to maintain a territorial "land bridge" through Donbas along the southeastern part of Ukraine to Crimea, south of the Dnipr.

So seizing a portion of Ukraine would enormously increase Russia's ability to project power and gain commercial influence into the Black Sea - and ultimately into the Med. Being able to have a greater footprint in the Black Sea gives Russia vastly more leverage with Turkey, both commercially (opening up more trading opportunities) and militarily (exposing Turkey to more direct naval power from Russia). Annexing the area south of the Dnipr from Russia to the Crimean Peninsula would result in an enormous strategic advantage to Russia. Blocking them from getting that is of paramount importance to Europe.

D: You need to look at their tactical and strategic position. Yes, that's a serious subject. Not sure why you don't think it is.

There's nothing in what I wrote that should make anyone think I ignore the strategic position. This is a straw man on your part. My main point is that the picture you paint NOW of the Russian Military would've been very different than the picture you would've painted BEFORE of the Russian Military. It's simply Monday morning quarterbacking.

I pay attention to the warnings, and the warnings are that Putin can hold out for longer than we think, even though Russia is hurting economically and needs the men home, and that they can produce newer weapons faster than we think. Yes, I'm familiar with all the stories of finding Normal store bought GPSs hooked up inside their cockpits, the lack of training, etc. It isn't a tank war.

By now EVERYONE should be familiar with Putin's goals, and that the populace does have the desire to return to A mythic Mother Russia past, this need not be repeated over and over.

We can make the plants quickly but some of the critical materials will be a problem. The Military finally woke up to this , but I've been disappointed that they appear to be easily conned about materials. Expect Snafus.

But we need to get that funding to Ukraine and assist the ammo builders how we can - we appear to be functioning normally - myopic.

My main point is that the picture you paint NOW of the Russian Military would've been very different than the picture you would've painted BEFORE of the Russian Military. It's simply Monday morning quarterbacking.

Hmm. If only there had been a previous conflict that pitted Soviet/Russian war doctrine, training and front line combat equipment against the United State's lineup. That might have given us *some* clues. Or maybe we could have seen other examples of Russian hardware quality out there.

Has anything like that happened in the last 30 years? Anything at all?

The real strawman (along with a bunch of other fallacies) is that there's actually somebody in the country who ISN'T a fan of seeing Russians stacked up alongside the road as fast as the Ukrainians can body them up. That's a democrat party trope.

The strategic blunder the democrats would make is to flex all over Putin while ignoring - and if fact, continuing to empower - the real threat in China.

Al Annexing the area south of the Dnipr from Russia to the Crimean Peninsula would result in an enormous strategic advantage to Russia. Blocking them from getting that is of paramount importance to Europe.

Thanks for that post. I hadn't thought of it in terms of power projection, mostly just advantage. You always do have very enlightening comments that I enjoy and also change my perspective. That's why I come here, for the change in perspective. :)

...but he still has a lot of resources and industry. If he finishes with Ukraine, who's next? Poland? They are certainly worried about that, based on how much aid they are sending to Ukraine. - 1pg

-----------------------

I saw an interview on the network that shall not be named, with a retired general where that question came up. His answer was based on his knowledge of the history of European invasions and his own experiences planning and conducting operations. He pointed out that the Putin's fears are legitimate based on geography invading forces come thru Poland Ukraine, there is a wide flat plain where forces can move quickly.

I found this article to prepare this post and it provides even more detail than the good general had time for during his fake interview with Fox News.... It's an interesting read.


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/...

Russia and the Curse of Geography

Want to understand why Putin does what he does? Look at a map.

... More at the link

I found this article to prepare this post and it provides even more detail than the good general had time for during his fake interview with Fox News.... It's an interesting read.

If you liked that article, I highly recommend his book - where he elaborates on his discussion of Russia and Ukraine, in addition to discussing a number of other geographic influences on history and politics:

https://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Geography-Explain...

"When you think about it a little more, you might ask, "So do we have infinite stockpiles to give away?" and the answer is NO."

That is a strawman. There is literally no one here who thinks we have sufficient stocks of ammo (of any type) to last for more than a few months at best in a real shooting war. For many types of munitions it would be weeks, not months.

"What happens if we need them? In their zeal to get on board with something that Biden wants they tend to forget that we have an army that needs stuff also."

Part of the Ukraine funding is money to expand the domestic production lines of many different types of munitions. That is why it is not just good for Ukraine, but great for the U.S. military as well.

"Russia isn't the country we'd get into a shooting war with. Why would we? Over what?" - Dope1

Do you realize Russia has already threatened many of the Baltic states that are part of NATO? If Putin sees we are uninterested in defending Ukraine he might start thinking that we would be uninterested in defending parts of NATO. Especially if there is a certain president in office who has talked about leaving NATO.

"So who would we need ammo for? China. There are any number of potential flashpoints in the Pacific."

Part of the bill is for defense of Asia (Taiwan). In that part of the bill there is money to expand our countries domestic shipyard capacity which has dwindled far too low. This is a direct shot at China because any conflict with them would heavily be reliant on the ships and submarines of the Navy.

Dope1: Russia is not something to worry about no matter how many times they try to fly around the Alaska ADIZ. If they do anything, it will an asymmetric attack.

So who would we need ammo for? China. There are any number of potential flashpoints in the Pacific.

How are republicans this clueless?

President Biden is providing funds for allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region right now and the recent military request package for Ukraine and Israel also provides $3.4 billion in additional funding (for, among other purchases, two Virginia-class attack submarines per year) for "any number of potential flashpoints in the Pacific" but republicans are holding up that additional funding.

Congress last year authorized up to $2 billion per year in Foreign Military Financing grants for Taiwan with the aim of deterring a potential Chinese attack, but appropriators did not fund that amount. Sullivan said the Biden administration intends to use the $2 billion request for partners across the region, not just Taiwan.

Additionally, the package asks Congress for $3.4 billion to bolster the submarine-industrial base with an eye toward AUKUS implementation. The U.S. Navy is already behind on its goal of producing two Virginia-class attack submarines per year and will have to slightly increase that goal to transfer at least three and as many as five of those vessels to Australia in the 2030s.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/20...

D Hmm. If only there had been a previous conflict that pitted Soviet/Russian war doctrine, training and front line combat equipment against the United State's lineup.

No. Before the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the reviews of the military were mixed. We had a few glimpses in Syria and the Donbass but it wasn't until around 2017 that some of the reviews of the Russian military were critical and judged the revamping started in 2008 as having no effect. I doubt you would've written such a poor assessment in say, 2016.

The real strawman (along with a bunch of other fallacies) is that there's actually somebody in the country who ISN'T a fan of seeing Russians stacked up alongside the road as fast as the Ukrainians can body them up. That's a democrat party trope.

You don't know what a strawman is, do you? I've got an easy way to remember it if you're interested.

We are helping defend a democracy attacked by an authoritarian state and assisting our allies in doing so. This democracy was attacked because the authoritarian leader wants to restore the old Russian Empire (you said this), and project power in the Black Sea area with his navy, etc. There is no indication it will stop with Ukraine, so, we are seeing countries who didn't join NATO, that have proximity to Russia, request to join NATO due to the perceived threat.

Your side is opposing new funding which assists the authoritarian that attacked the democratic state. This is could be perceived as an anti-democratic move. The insurrection ( elements of) on Jan 6 was an anti democratic move. Taken together they support the contention that you have a large anti-democratic faction within your party.

We live in a representative democracy called a republic that is doing very well right now. But - we have a treasonous person running for President who doesn't give a flying fuck about the country. He's running for office because he's afraid of all the potential convictions because he's guilty as hell.

We need to defend democracy when we can do it, and while we can do it.

No.

Yes. Re-read what I wrote.

You becoming not worth the time. Not trying to decipher your non-plain BS speak anymore.

Here's where you are.

“Dear Republican Senators of America. Ronald Reagan, who helped millions of us to win back our freedom and independence, must be turning in his grave today. Shame on you,” Tusk wrote on X, formerly called Twitter.

By invoking Reagan, a former Republican president, and his efforts in the 1980s to support Poland's struggle to shake off Moscow's dominance, Tusk sought to underscore Washington's global role and previous Republican values.

You've abandoned all your values.

Here's what I wrote.
You don't read what other people link or post; you just fire off stuff.

Hmm. If only there had been a previous conflict that pitted Soviet/Russian war doctrine, training and front line combat equipment against the United State's lineup. That might have given us *some* clues. Or maybe we could have seen other examples of Russian hardware quality out there.

There were 2 such occasions. Gulf Wars I and II.
In both instances we saw Russian hardware, doctrine and tactics (Iraq was a Soviet/Russian client state) against the United States and NATO.

The Russian way was decimated. Their equipment was vastly inferior to ours in a technical and a quality sense.

If you study any of this you'd also know that Putin struggles to put his Navy to sea. They can barely steam anywhere and their endurance is poor.

Had you looked even deeper, you'd have seen things like this
https://theaviationist.com/2022/05/24/california-a...
Following its independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ukrainian public opinion was divided between reaching out to the West or staying aligned with Russia. Ukraine became in 1993 one of the many European countries to join the State Partnership Program, where each country was paired with an American state, and Ukraine was paired with California.

We've been training the Ukrainian Air Force for 30 years.

Col. Robert “Tigger” Swertfager, Operations Group Commander of the California Air National Guard’s 144th Fighter Wing, explains the 29-year long relationship between the California ANG and Ukraine. Col. Swertfager has 20 years of experience in working with Ukraine, as he’s the former State Partnership Program director and a key figure in the expertise of the region.

Think the Ukrainians learned anything? Think we learned how the Russians trained pilots?

What about their ground troops? We've been training them too.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/how-training-b...

Giving small-unit commanders the autonomy to make decisions on the fly was a cultural transformation for the Ukrainian soldiers, but seems to be paying off in spades

Huh. A complete 180 from Soviet/Russian battle doctrine.
We've been teaching the Ukrainians to fight like NATO for decades.

No more rocks for you.
If you knew where to look and if you actually followed national security topics, you can draw conclusions about world events before and as they happen.

The Russian system also breeds corruption. We're just now seeing this bubble up in China as well.

You've abandoned all your values.

So far you've called me
*A terrorist
*A brownshirt/Nazi
*somebody with no values

...and who knows what else. And yet you play the victim. I've always been fascinated by liberals, who think they can fling insults as a matter of routine and still claim to be victims of something.

Hmm. If only there had been a previous conflict that pitted Soviet/Russian war doctrine, training and front line combat equipment against the United State's lineup. That might have given us *some* clues. Or maybe we could have seen other examples of Russian hardware quality out there.

There were 2 such occasions. Gulf Wars I and II.
In both instances we saw Russian hardware, doctrine and tactics (Iraq was a Soviet/Russian client state) against the United States and NATO.

I don't think so. You can't really compare the old soviet armament in unskilled hands to our modern armament in highly trained hands. Same with the planes. I'm glad you read about it, but do I think you can extrapolate from an unskilled army with old armament to the Soviet Military?

I think skill level and good tactics can make quite a difference. In GW 1&2 we had a vastly superior force in every way and our forces are highly trained.

Assessments didn't start to disparage the Russian military until ~2017, but that was because of direct encounters with the Russian military. But even then it was hard to believe that they acted as if they had little training. Training makes a huge difference, and it's difficult to imagine the Russians not training their army. And most analysis thought the armament was better than it is too.

I think you made your opinion after the war started and we saw the dismal state of training and tactics.

BTW, the state is free to define what an excise tax is for STATE purposes, the point everyone made was a state can't redefine or reinterpret the FEDERAL Tax Code. Big difference.

Now - Reagan would fund Ukraine in a heartbeat - why are you abandoning your values? I know you don't care about Russian bodies, you just like the sound byte.

Now - Reagan would fund Ukraine in a heartbeat - why are you abandoning your values? I know you don't care about Russian bodies, you just like the sound byte.

You don't read what people write.
I've no problem arming the Ukrainians.

Some on your side are terrorists and brownshirt/Nazis - you? Individually? I doubt it. But if you join in and spread misinformation. conspiracy theories, pass along lies, etc., you can indirectly contribute.

But you have abandoned all the GOP values. At this point you're blowing in the wind, and whatever fearless leader wants you to think, you will think. Has nothing to do with dead Russian bodies.

WE need good citizens, not flotsam easily manipulated by a demagogue.

Now, us training Ukraine has little/nothing to do with the Soviets - 1. Not training their troops, 2. using poor tactics - seemingly unprepared for modern war when they've had close up seats, and 3. the state of the armament was dismal.

But you have abandoned all the GOP values. </iL

LOL. There’s that famous civility that lefties demand but never give.

Nobody hates like a liberal. Nobody.

You don't read what people write.
I've no problem arming the Ukrainians.

Your writing and responses are all over the place, make no sense 2/3 of the time, and many times are just free association flooding the zone with shit, so people strain to follow you and are unsure of what you are saying.

You then accuse them of not reading what you write. It's your writing Dope, be direct. Don't flood the zone with shit. No one thinks you're a superior thinker or writer by doing that, just the opposite - they think you are deliberately being obscure because you are unsure of or can't defend what you're saying.

But you have abandoned all the GOP values. </iL

LOL. There’s that famous civility that lefties demand but never give.

Nobody hates like a liberal. Nobody.

That is civil, and it isn't hate. See? You readily accuse people of things they didn't do. Why should we talk to you?

D I've no problem arming the Ukrainians.

The question is are you against fully funding the request made by the Biden Administration? You can disagree with one part as long as you agree to fully find it.

"You can disagree with one part as long as you agree to fully find it."

Why is that ?

Your writing and responses are all over the place, make no sense 2/3 of the time,

That's on you. You don't read, you don't understand anything, and you go into every thread with a narrative story you want to match the other side to. Then when you don't get it, you get all stampy-foot and start calling people terrorists, Nazis, what have you.

Hey, man, you do you. I'm not going to fetch you any more rocks and when I see the narrative game being played I'm going to call you on it.

That is civil, and it isn't hate. See? You readily accuse people of things they didn't do. Why should we talk to you?

You don't talk. You insult.

Here's you upthread: Some on your side are terrorists and brownshirt/Nazis - you? Individually? I doubt it. But if you join in and spread misinformation. conspiracy theories, pass along lies, etc., you can indirectly contribute.

But you have abandoned all the GOP values. At this point you're blowing in the wind, and whatever fearless leader wants you to think, you will think. Has nothing to do with dead Russian bodies.

So you "doubt" I'm a Nazi or a terrorist but you're obliquely accusing me of lying and spreading "disinformation".

But that's civil!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good luck, homie. I had held out hope that you were of higher quality than some of the others but you're in the process of showing us that...you're not.

That's on you. You don't read, you don't understand anything, and you go into every thread with a narrative story you want to match the other side to. Then when you don't get it, you get all stampy-foot and start calling people terrorists, Nazis, what have you.

Hey, man, you do you. I'm not going to fetch you any more rocks and when I see the narrative game being played I'm going to call you on it

I think you're confused. I recall saying a chunk of your side resembles protofascists and called them beige shirts.

Here's one of your points in direct writing.

"I think we've had two good examples of Russian tactics, training, and armament being defeated by the USA in GW 1 & 2. I think that's enough to support we had adequate knowledge that the Soviet Military is extremely deficient;"

There it is. Two posts you made summarized into two sentences. My point is clear.

And by "fetching rocks" do you mean that you didn't tell me you were talking about GW 1 & 2 in the first post and waited to see if I'd guess what you meant? Isn't that a game? Yes it is. So you play games and then accuse me of playing games? I didn't play your game did I?

And thank you for your post on the Excise tax, but after reading enough of it I realized your response had nothing to do with what anyone was talking about. I was interested because you stated a blue state had redefined Federal Income. They didn't, they redefined excise tax to include capital gains for STATE income purposes. Not the first time I've seen something like that.

Dope, be more direct, don't do strawmen, don't flood the zone with shit, and don't play games and accuse the other side of playing games.

How are republicans this clueless?

They rely on propaganda, not actual news sources.

They rely on propaganda, not actual news sources.

So China's not a threat? Okay, then.
Living in the left wing bubble isn't helping you.

Logical fallacy. Your response is irrelevant, and not what I said at all.

To address your fallacious comment:

I have said repeatedly that they are a threat. In fact, I was saying it before it was fashionable. I've been saying it for years. Decades. If you could resurrect the old TMF boards, you'll find me talking about what a problem China is going to be in the future. Well, the future is here now.

That doesn't mean Russia isn't. A different threat, but a threat. Which we are tying up very nicely by enabling Ukraine to keep them in the mire. It's foolish to let Putin off the mat.

and not what I said at all.

Then you should be more precise in your wording, or refrain from personal attacks (by implying what I say is fueled by propaganda).

Here's teh logical progression you're following:

Dope says China is a threat. Dope is citing sources 1pg doesn't like.
1pg says Dope is pushing propaganda.

Therefore, mentioning China is a threat while citing sources 1pg doesn't like is pushing propaganda.

If that's how you want to roll, I won't stop you.

It's foolish to let Putin off the mat.
Who said this? Not me.

Again, many on this board assign gross positions to their debate opponents and don't really read what they type.

Allow me to spell out my position vis a vis Ukraine:

1. Supporting the Ukrainians is important
2. Seeing Putin bleed his armed forces is a good thing
3. However, we shouldn't have the Ukrainians a blank check
4. We also shouldn't deplete our ammo reserves because the bigger threat is China.

Is this clear enough? Another poster here seems to not be able to process the above.

...refrain from personal attacks (by implying what I say is fueled by propaganda).

I implied no such thing, and did not attack you personally.

The question was asked about why generic "Republicans" were clueless. I replied that it was because they have bad news sources. If you take that personally, I guess that's on you. Your name was not mentioned by me or the poster I was replying to. Given the established history of poor sources on the right, I stand by my statement. Not all of them, but many Republicans are woefully misinformed because of the sources they rely upon.

As for China, we agree. They are a threat. I don't know what sources you used to come to that conclusion, but (IMHO) it is a correct conclusion.

I also didn't say that you said anything about Putin. You didn't (at least in the posts I read). But depriving Ukraine of funding is equivalent. Again, your name was not mentioned by me.

I agree with three of your four points. #4 doesn't really apply. First, China will require entirely different ammo. As I stated a few days ago. We will need anti-ship missiles with China. Ukraine needs 155mm rounds. Another poster also pointed out that part of the package was two new attack subs, and funding for munitions production. Which will help BOTH theaters of (potential) conflict.

Given the established history of poor sources on the right, I stand by my statement.

LOL. Whatever you say. Dan Rather says "hi".

I agree with three of your four points. #4 doesn't really apply. First, China will require entirely different ammo. As I stated a few days ago. We will need anti-ship missiles with China. Ukraine needs 155mm rounds. Another poster also pointed out that part of the package was two new attack subs, and funding for munitions production. Which will help BOTH theaters of (potential) conflict.

We need arty rounds vs. China also. What do you expect the Taiwanese to do, throw rocks?

I never get my information from talking heads, so again...not relevant.

That battle will be won or lost at sea. No significant arty. Ships, subs, and missiles. The real key is preventing that to begin with, which means showing resolve, FON missions, bolstering the Philippines (and Taiwan), etc. Taiwan isn't much of an impediment to the Chinese, but we are. For as long as we choose to be.

1. Supporting the Ukrainians is important
2. Seeing Putin bleed his armed forces is a good thing
3. However, we shouldn't have the Ukrainians a blank check
4. We also shouldn't deplete our ammo reserves because the bigger threat is China.

Is this clear enough? Another poster here seems to not be able to process the above.

No, direct and clear this time. Very different from your Russian body count statement.

3. We don't give Ukrainians a bank check, we have an alliance to deal with though.
2. Fist time I've read this, agree, but I would like movement, not just bleeding.
4. Then we shouldn't hold up the money to assist gearing up on the ammo.
1. Agreed.

The Philippines just got SPYDER missiles from Israel, and they have Brahmos and are acquiring more and some HIMAR on the horizon.
I don't have any word on if they will allow us to set up an advanced radar system on Palowan.

We need to keep up FON OPS but ubless conditions change, not much we can do.

I'm hoping the the stealth drone subs are better than they let us know. We're moving away from littoral craft. No sign that China is hardening her ports in the string of pearls

Couple this with foreign policy reading.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.