Post New

How desperate are the democrats to shift the narrative on illegal immigration? This desperate:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-dem...

Senate Democrats on Thursday refiled a previously failed bipartisan border security bill in a bid to force Republicans to again oppose legislation they helped craft just months before the November election.

But the Republican co-author of the measure will vote down the proposal this go-around and disparaged what he called a “nonserious” attempt to score political points off the illegal immigration crisis at the southern border.

“It’s just a messaging piece,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), the lead GOP negotiator on immigration, said. “This is trying to poke Republicans in the eye rather than try to solve the problem.”

And he's right. If Schumer wants a border support bill, all he has to do is take up the House Bill that's already passed.

But he won't, because for the d's this has always been about performative optics and never about actually securing the border.

And he's right. If Schumer wants a border support bill, all he has to do is take up the House Bill that's already passed.

Except the House bill is also a messaging bill. It was also just about performative optics, just to poke Democrats in the eye, and never about actually securing the border.

You're never going to get legislation adopted to change our border policy unless the parties actually negotiate on a bill. The House Bill wasn't that. The Senate bill was that, until Trump called off the negotiations because he didn't want the GOP and the Democrats to reach an agreement (note: it's entirely possible that there's no agreement to be reached).

But the House bill was far more a performative optics messaging piece than the Senate bill ever was....

And just to bring this up:

https://nypost.com/2024/05/15/us-news/biden-plans-...

President Biden is planning executive action that would allow him to shut down the US-Mexico border once the number of migrant crossings reaches 4,000 per day, a source close to the White House told The Post Wednesday.

The order would match a provision in the bipartisan border bill that failed to pass the Senate in February, which gave the president authority to expel migrants when border crossings reached the same daily average.

We argued long and hard about this, and it's good to see the White House agree with myself and others who called the limits that were in the border bill what they really were.

Scoreboard.

Except the House bill is also a messaging bill. It was also just about performative optics, just to poke Democrats in the eye, and never about actually securing the border.

That's what YOU say. If you read the actual bill you can see policies in it that would beef up border security and reform things.

The House Bill wasn't that. The Senate bill was that, until Trump called off the negotiations because he didn't want the GOP and the Democrats to reach an agreement (note: it's entirely possible that there's no agreement to be reached).

The Senate bill was and is horrible, and if put out on the floor would fail.
You guys are also fixated with "blaming" Trump, but literally nobody who thinks about the border wants this. Nobody.

That's what YOU say. If you read the actual bill you can see policies in it that would beef up border security and reform things.

But it wouldn't get a single Democratic vote in the Senate.

That's what a "messaging bill" is. A bill that contains only one party's positions and preferences, and which (therefore) doesn't have a chance of becoming law. It doesn't mean that the bill doesn't contain substantive policies - it means that the drafters have deliberately avoided engaging in any of the work necessary to actually get the bill out of Congress. The purpose of the bill is to send a message about the party's position, rather than to get adopted.

Exactly what Schumer is doing with the doomed, formerly bi-partisan border bill...

But it wouldn't get a single Democratic vote in the Senate.

Tester and Manchin, to name two, possibly Sinema and Fetterman. That's 4.

A bill that contains only one party's positions and preferences

Sure about the 'one party' bit? There's a reason why Schumer is pulling this stunt in the first place.

Tester and Manchin, to name two, possibly Sinema and Fetterman. That's 4.

They wouldn't. There's carp in that bill they'd never support. Tester and Manchin would support a vastly more stringent bill than Schumer would ever let on the floor, it's true - but not the House Bill we're talking about.

Sure about the 'one party' bit? There's a reason why Schumer is pulling this stunt in the first place.

Yep. The "message" in this case is that Democrats are now willing to cut a bipartisan deal on the border, and the GOP won't. The GOP won't vote for anything unless it's their own messaging bill, because they don't want to take the issue out of the 2024 election.

That's why it's a messaging bill - Schumer wants to draw a contrast on the border, and the way he does it is by putting a bill on the floor that the most liberal members of his party won't vote for. He's sending a message that his party is willing to swallow a bill that pisses off the base a bit, in order to solve a problem. Which the GOP won't do.

We argued long and hard about this, and it's good to see the White House agree with myself and others who called the limits that were in the border bill what they really were.

Scoreboard.

It's not "scoreboard" until the EO stands up to a request for an injunction.

Biden's doing the same thing he did with student loan forgiveness. He (correctly) argued that he needed legislation to implement a particular policy. Then when the legislation failed, he decided he didn't want to keep putting up with people complaining that he really didn't need the legislation - so he went ahead and did the EO. Which was then promptly enjoined by the courts as being outside of his authority.

This is also pure "messaging." Biden's reached the point where the political pain of being hammered on immigration is higher than the political pain of adopting an EO that's likely to get shot down by the courts as unconstitutional (which carries two different types of costs - the cost of being shown to be ineffective and the cost of taking a political hit from your base and still not solving the problem). So he'll take the hits of being called "Deporter in Chief" (or whatever the current incarnation of that ends up being), but he can possibly get folks like you to stop claiming he's got executive powers he's just choosing not to exercise.

They wouldn't. There's carp in that bill they'd never support. Tester and Manchin would support a vastly more stringent bill than Schumer would ever let on the floor, it's true - but not the House Bill we're talking about.

You know what Jon Tester likes more than anything? His job.
He'll be voting against Schumer's bill.

Schumer wants to draw a contrast on the border, and the way he does it is by putting a bill on the floor that the most liberal members of his party won't vote for. He's sending a message that his party is willing to swallow a bill that pisses off the base a bit, in order to solve a problem. Which the GOP won't do.

LOL. This bill gives him 5,000 ille-, uh, "Asylum seekers" a day. This bill gives border hawks very little.

You know what Jon Tester likes more than anything? His job.
He'll be voting against Schumer's bill.

He already voted for it once, so I'd be surprised if he changed his vote. The ones who will vote against it are on the party's far left flank, not the center:

https://www.tester.senate.gov/newsroom/press-relea...

LOL. This bill gives him 5,000 ille-, uh, "Asylum seekers" a day. This bill gives border hawks very little.

The current statutes "give him" an infinite number of asylum seekers a day. This bill changes that, and would make it certain that at least some of the folks that currently are allowed to apply for asylum would instead be summarily rejected - without getting any of the "goodies" that immigrant advocates have insisted must be part of any bipartisan border bill, such as legalizing the status of the DREAMERS.

An enforcement bill with no DREAMER normalization? Had it not been for the once-in-a-generation political circumstances, I wouldn't have thought it possible. But Trump's electoral needs have led the GOP to pass up the chance to negotiate a bill starting from there, with the assent of the Senate Majority Leader and the President. It'll be another generation before border hawks get anything as good as this on the table from the Democrats....

The current statutes "give him" an infinite number of asylum seekers a day.

The current statutes are giving him a political headache, and so to thread the needle between an angry public that's telling him This Situation Sucks and his desire for more illegal aliens we have these insane, performative compromises.

without getting any of the "goodies" that immigrant advocates have insisted must be part of any bipartisan border bill, such as legalizing the status of the DREAMERS.

Had he traded the Dreamers for the 5,000 he would have gotten it. Shows you what he really wants, doesn't it? The Dreamers are already here; he wants more.

It'll be another generation before border hawks get anything as good as this on the table from the Democrats....

This doesn't carry the heft that you think it does.
democrats are openly saying, "We're the party that lets illegals on it and fentanyl flood in over the border". When you say they'll never negotiate on tighter border security...you're not landing the point you think you're landing.

The current statutes are giving him a political headache, and so to thread the needle between an angry public that's telling him This Situation Sucks and his desire for more illegal aliens we have these insane, performative compromises.

It's not an inane, performative compromise. The "situation sucks" because we don't have the resources budgeted to handle it, or the rules in place to shut things down when the situation gets out of hand. We would have gotten both of those things had the bill passed. It's not the performatively draconian bill the GOP wants, but it would have materially reduced the problem.

This doesn't carry the heft that you think it does.
democrats are openly saying, "We're the party that lets illegals on it and fentanyl flood in over the border". When you say they'll never negotiate on tighter border security...you're not landing the point you think you're landing.

They'll negotiate on tighter border security - but they'll never agree to a bill that doesn't have something for the DREAMERs now that this very unusual political moment has passed.

They certainly have the harder lift, educating voters that the GOP would rather keep the status quo and have a broken system rather than actually pass a bill. The dirty little secret is that the brutal employer and farmworker enforcement provisions that are in the House Bill wouldn't have gotten enough GOP votes in the Senate - the only reason that it passed the House is that the members knew it would never get enacted. The GOP also enjoys posturing on the issue. That's the point of this exercise - to demonstrate that the majority of Democrats would vote for a border security bill, and the GOP won't.

It will certainly be a political weak point for the Democrats....but that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats did offer border hawks the best deal they've ever been offered on the border. And they said "no." Had Trump not intervened, I think the two parties would have gotten to a bill that would have gotten significant GOP support....but that opportunity is lost, now.

The "situation sucks" because we don't have the resources budgeted to handle it, or the rules in place to shut things down when the situation gets out of hand. We would have gotten both of those things had the bill passed. It's not the performatively draconian bill the GOP wants, but it would have materially reduced the problem.

Locking in another 1.8M illegals a year...doesn't reduce the problem.

They'll negotiate on tighter border security - but they'll never agree to a bill that doesn't have something for the DREAMERs now that this very unusual political moment has passed.

Again, what was "unusual" about this was that
1. The democrats even admitted there was a problem. How many times have Biden, Harris, Mayorkas et al. said "the border is secure"?
2. The democrats have rarely in their history ever wanted to entertain tighter controls on the border.

The flood of illegals and the rampant importation of fentanyl moved the political needle far enough that the democrats couldn't ignore it any longer. That being said, they immediately jumped on this bill as a way to say wE'rE tOtAlLy SeRiOuS You Guys in the hopes that the media would go along with it. Which they did, until details of this bill leaked out.

but that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats did offer border hawks the best deal they've ever been offered on the border.

So? Again, this doesn't carry the weight that you think it does.
So if a bully says to his victim, "Here's a one time deal. Instead of stuffing you in the locker and leaving you there for hours I'm just going to give you a swirly instead", is that a good deal? Nah, not so much.

Had Trump not intervened, I think the two parties would have gotten to a bill that would have gotten significant GOP support....but that opportunity is lost, now.

Your timeline is off. This bill didn't even rise to the level of DOA as Johnson killed it before Schumer sent it over. That was before Trump even weighed in.

Your timeline is off. This bill didn't even rise to the level of DOA as Johnson killed it before Schumer sent it over. That was before Trump even weighed in

This just isn't so. In fact you came on this board and whined that they were taking away Trump's best issue (border) before Johnson killed it.

Locking in another 1.8M illegals a year...doesn't reduce the problem.

You're not "locking in" anything. You're just imposing additional restrictions if too many people show up at the border claiming asylum at once.

If a city adopts an ordinance authorizing the mayor to declare a curfew if there are ten homicides in a day, that's not "locking in" 3,650 murders.

Your timeline is off. This bill didn't even rise to the level of DOA as Johnson killed it before Schumer sent it over. That was before Trump even weighed in.

My mistake. Johnson declared that if the Senate bill was passed as is it would be DOA on a Friday, and on that Monday Trump said that he wanted the negotiations stopped and that he would take the blame for it. Had Trump come out the other way, Johnson would have flopped more than a fish to support whatever revised bill came out of the discussions.

You're not "locking in" anything. You're just imposing additional restrictions if too many people show up at the border claiming asylum at once.

The proper number of people crossing the border illegally is...

...wait for it...

...wait for it...

Zero.

Biden wants a much higher number.

The proper number of people crossing the border illegally is...

Dope, remember that a person requesting asylum status is not in the country illegally.

So we still have all the attendant problems, and you will see Biden's Executive Orders fail, just as Trump's EOs failed, were inhumane, and he was saved by Title 42. However, while you are pursuing the magic Green Lantern solution, we need to proceed. It seems to me that some in Europe think the refugee laws are a little too liberal and that we either need to amend agreements or agree to interpret the agreements more strictly. We need a more workable approach than we have. The GOP doesn't want it solved. Please get out of the way.

The proper number of people crossing the border illegally is...

...wait for it...

...wait for it...

Zero.

Biden wants a much higher number.

The proper number of people cheating on their taxes is...

...wait for it...

...wait for it...

Zero.

The GOP wants a much higher number.



Right? Isn't that why they objected to increasing the IRS budget? Because they wanted people to be able to cheat on their taxes, and get away with it? Because they wanted criminal tax evasion to increase and go unpunished? Is that right?

Or maybe - just maybe - it's possible for adults who are discussing political and policy issues to recognize that any regulatory enforcement mechanism has trade-offs. That there are consequences to ramping up tax enforcement. That it requires allocating resources that people might feel are better spent elsewhere or that it imposes hardships and obligations on the regulated population. That you can have concerns about the consequences of draconian enforcement without desiring that illegal behavior happen or that it go without consequences. That people of good faith can differ about the relative weight to assign the negative consequences of a draconian enforcement regime and those of the rulebreaking that happens in a less-than-draconian enforcement regime....and not falsely proclaim that the opposing position wants the rulebreaking, rather than wants to avoid the other consequences of the draconian regime.

Right? Isn't that why they objected to increasing the IRS budget? Because they wanted people to be able to cheat on their taxes, and get away with it? Because they wanted criminal tax evasion to increase and go unpunished? Is that right?

This analogy would work if we had an avalanche of tax cheats and the IRS was powerless to stop it...and we had had a raft of Republicans calling for cheating...and so on and so forth.

Or maybe - just maybe - it's possible for adults who are discussing political and policy issues to recognize that any regulatory enforcement mechanism has trade-offs.

Of course. The current bill that Schumer is fronting is not it. I get that it's the first time democrats have deigned to stop by the negotiating table but that in and of itself isn't anything to write home about. In other words, all of them swore to uphold the laws of the country and as such they don't get a pat on the back for deciding to do their jobs for once.

That people of good faith can differ about the relative weight to assign the negative consequences of a draconian enforcement regime and those of the rulebreaking that happens in a less-than-draconian enforcement regime....and not falsely proclaim that the opposing position wants the rulebreaking, rather than wants to avoid the other consequences of the draconian regime.

Reasonable people can agree and disagree all the time. I'd encourage the democrats to put down the "get in their faces" tactics that they've adopted over the last 20 years.

This analogy would work if we had an avalanche of tax cheats and the IRS was powerless to stop it...and we had had a raft of Republicans calling for cheating...and so on and so forth.

How do you know this isn't happening? The IRS usually pledges to audit more millionaires but does it actually do that. Millionaires know how to get their voices heard relatively silently.

What's unusual at the moment is that gangs are advertising on social media in countries - the price to get to the US border from China is $20,000. They fly into Ecuador and come up from there. It isn't unusual for gangs.cartels to branch out and make money in other areas. In Mexico they operate mines without safety gear, etc., and its easy steady income.

The current bill that Schumer is fronting is not it

It was a great start and you killed it, and all for Trump.

The "no compromise" tea party theme has captured the Republican party. It's like trying to pilot a boat with the anchors in the water. I'm used to not getting what I want, but y'all have been kvetching about the border since 2006 and nothing has happened. What happens when Trump is in power? We gave huge tax breaks to the rich. Congratulations on your few extra miles of border wall. It's hard to do anything with 70 million boat anchors in the water.

Dope1: This analogy would work if we had an avalanche of tax cheats...

We do.

Trump's own IRS Commissioner testified it's costing the U.S. as much as $1 trillion annually.

The IRS estimates tax cheats cost the US at least $688 billion in 2021 alone. Trump’s IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told the Senate Finance Committee that the annual tax gap could be $1 trillion.

One trillion dollars of lost taxes annually sure sounds like an avalanche.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/13/irs-one-t....

Dope1: This analogy would work if we had an avalanche of tax cheats...
We do.
Trump's own IRS Commissioner testified it's costing the U.S. as much as $1 trillion annually.

Indeed we do have a huge number of tax cheats.

Recall that one of Obama's early actions was a 'forgiveness' program that offered an amnesty to Americans who maintained illegal offshore accounts.be

Cooperative banks in over 70 countries including the British Channel Islands, Switzerland notified American account holders that their accounts had to be closed within a relatively short time frame.

A division in the IRS was established to review the amnesty applicants, calculate a fine, and confirm the funds were repatriated to US institutions.
That program ended in 2018 when the orange rapist was in office.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/pr...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/04/the-irs-is-ending-...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/11/ir...

sano: "Indeed we do have a huge number of tax cheats."

Amen!

Like this crook for example...

WASHINGTON (AP) (Rapist & Wannabe Nazi) Donald Trump may face an IRS bill in excess of $100 million after a government audit indicates he double-dipped on tax losses tied to a Chicago skyscraper.

Don't worry Dope and BH-Mike will pay Trumps share! (With interest of course!)

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tax-losses-audit-...

"This analogy would work if we had an avalanche of tax cheats..."

There is evidence that there is at least 100,000 times more people cheating on their taxes than illegal aliens illegally voting.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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