Avoid making exclusive or discriminatory comments, instead try to create board posts that are open and welcoming to all.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 5
So say some Republicans regarding killing the immigration deal to help Trump's campaign.
So it's more important to many Reps to help a campaign than it is to stem the "flood" of migrants crossing the border and remaining.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-...Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., urged his colleagues not to make it all about politics at the behest of another candidate.
“I didn’t come here to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss. I came here to pass good, solid policy," Tillis said. “It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win.”
No. of Recommendations: 0
Immigrants needs to be protected from you Trumpy Democrats and your xenophobic cries to "secure the border"
No. of Recommendations: 0
So it's more important to many Reps to help a campaign than it is to stem the "flood" of migrants crossing the border and remaining. - 1pg
========================
Hidden agendas can cut both ways. Voters are left to figure it out as best they can.
The "compromise" may or may not need killing based on what is or is not in it. It could very well be the case that Dems will include a poisonous clause forcing a rejection in the house and giving Biden something to campaign on.
Dope quoted Ace of Spades who brilliantly explained it this way,
Every single year, the "Gang of Traitors" proposes the same laundry list:
* More money to process illegals faster
* Mass amnesty for children brought illegally to the US -- the "dreamers" -- and also the adult dependents of the Dreamers. Chain amnesty!
* Work visas for illegals
* A "path to citizenship" for illegals
We keep telling them we want:
* a border wall
* more security
* more deportations
* a sharply narrowed definition of who is permitted to claim "asylum" status, which is how most illegals scheme their way into the country
We keep saying the same thing year after year, and the Gang of Traitors says they're finally going to give us border security -- Border security, in these four steps:
* More money to process illegals faster
* Mass amnesty for children brought illegally to the US -- the "dreamers" -- and also the adult dependents of the Dreamers. Chain amnesty!
* Work visas for illegals
* A "path to citizenship" for illegals
Wait...
that's...
that's the exact same thing you've "offered" us since 2002... <--- Spot on.
.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I get that you don't trust Dems. But you don't trust the Reps (i.e. your people) to reach a compromise that gets you some of what you want?
I'm sure there are things you'll hate, and probably things that I'll hate. That is the nature of compromise.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The border “deal” itself is what’s immoral.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I get that you don't trust Dems. But you don't trust the Reps (i.e. your people) to reach a compromise that gets you some of what you want?
I'm sure there are things you'll hate, and probably things that I'll hate. That is the nature of compromise.
What does that bill contain that Republicans want? “Compromise” does not mean that democrats get 99% of what they want and the GOP gets 2%.
No. of Recommendations: 5
What does that bill contain that Republicans want? “Compromise” does not mean that democrats get 99% of what they want and the GOP gets 2%.
Trump killed the bill for a campaign issue. Hypocrisy thy name is Dope and the MAGA.
No. of Recommendations: 4
So you don't trust your leaders to represent you and NOT get a 98% vs 2% deal?
Of course they may not get what YOU want, but they would be getting some of their national policy goals. There wouldn't be a deal otherwise.
Same for Dems.
Politics is about compromise. Otherwise the status quo continues, which you have made very clear you find abhorrent.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So you don't trust your leaders to represent you and NOT get a 98% vs 2% deal?
They haven't in 40 years. Why should they start now?
Setting the limit to 5,000 border crossers - a day, which is what it is now - is insane.
So far no one's been able to point to a single thing that resembles a "compromise" in this bill.
What are the democrats willing to concede to the GOP?
No. of Recommendations: 1
So far no one's been able to point to a single thing that resembles a "compromise" in this bill. - Dope
-----------------
Aren't we just debating rumors? Where can I go to actually read what is in the proposed comprise, even in draft form?
No. of Recommendations: 3
bighairymike:
Aren't we just debating rumors? Where can I go to actually read what is in the proposed comprise, even in draft form?Word is, the bill will be available next week. The latest reporting is that
the Department of Homeland Security would be granted new emergency authority to shut down the border if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS would be required to close the border to migrants crossing illegally not entering at ports of entry. Certain migrants would be allowed to stay if they prove to be fleeing torture or persecution in their countries.
Moreover, if crossings exceed 8,500 in a single day, DHS would be required to close the border to migrants illegally crossing the border. Under the proposal, any migrant who tries to cross the border twice while it is closed would be banned from entering the US for one year.The package would also speed up the asylum process to consider cases within six months rather than the several years it takes now.
But yeah,
technically still rumors.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/politics/senate-dea...
No. of Recommendations: 1
The latest reporting is that "the Department of Homeland Security would be granted new emergency authority to shut down the border if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS would be required to close the border to migrants crossing illegally not entering at ports of entry. Certain migrants would be allowed to stay if they prove to be fleeing torture or persecution in their countries.
Moreover, if crossings exceed 8,500 in a single day, DHS would be required to close the border to migrants illegally crossing the border. Under the proposal, any migrant who tries to cross the border twice while it is closed would be banned from entering the US for one year." - quoted by CO
=================
Just a few comments and rhetorical questions....
Re: DHS emergency authority to shut down the border if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span.
hah, having the authority is no guarantee that the authority will be used.
And Shut down? That sounds like border security to me, How exactly will the border shutdown be accomplished given we are told this very thing is impossible today.
If actually shut down somehow, what happens to the arrivals that show up anyway?
And what about the timing delay of statistics. 4,000 daily average cap but consider a surge of forty or fifty thousand showing up in one week and again the next week and the week after that. Then we find out that four weeks ago, the limit was exceed, so we shut down but what about all the excess that got in while we are waiting for the stats?
===================
Re: allowed to stay if they prove to be fleeing torture or persecution in their countries.
Loophole city. The advocates, lawyers, and NGO's will coach the would be asylee on exactly what to say like they are doing now.
==============
Lastly got-aways are presently unaccounted for but are estimated at 800 to 1,000 per day, 1.2M since Biden took office. To me this is the biggest threat, Nobody knows who these people are or what their intent is in coming her. or what reason they have fro not presenting themselves to BC and claiming asylum. What in the proposal stops 99% of these types of illegals.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Albaby already told you what we know. I can't really add to that. Though it hadn't occurred to me that Reps were using Ukraine as leverage. I forgot that Reps used to hate the USSR, but don't anymore. This is the best chance the Reps are likely to get to get more strict rules and enforcement.
Otherwise, nothing will change for another decade or more.
