The border is not open

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2024 0:10:12 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Jan 4, 2024 23:53:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Wrong on so many counts.

Abbott knows he is not to bus migrants to NYC without giving the city notice. So what is Abbott now doing? Bussing then to NJ transit stations in New Jersey and the migrants are being told to take NJ Transit trains into NYC. And NYC is not being told by Abbott that migrants are on their way into NYC.

Good for Abbot. NJ should tell NYC they are coming. He has found a good work-a-round to his problem. Maybe when these states/cities have had enough of this they will force their congress people fix the problem.

I know you would probably be happy living in a police state, but the Texas bus companies dropping off migrants at small NJ Transit stations are not policed. People in busses being dropped of at NJ Transit stations happen pretty much every work day. Who these humans are was not investigated. And there is no one telling the migrants what to do once they are in NYC.

The Texas bus companies and Abbott should be minimally charged with human trafficking.

[djAdvocate]

i know it is fun to say that this and that are not a right.
it gets people all worked up.

for example: you don't have any ownership rights to the land you live on in the US (with certain rare exceptions in places like Texas).

i love that one. it freaks people out. but it is a fact.

we also have no fundamental right to privacy in the US.
that one really sucks. i hate that.
what little privacy we have is through case law.
and it ain't a lot.

i am not sure that any of those are in the UDHR. but healthcare is.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2024 0:10:12 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Jan 4, 2024 23:53:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Wrong on so many counts.

Abbott knows he is not to bus migrants to NYC without giving the city notice. So what is Abbott now doing? Bussing then to NJ transit stations in New Jersey and the migrants are being told to take NJ Transit trains into NYC. And NYC is not being told by Abbott that migrants are on their way into NYC.

Good for Abbot. NJ should tell NYC they are coming. He has found a good work-a-round to his problem. Maybe when these states/cities have had enough of this they will force their congress people fix the problem.

Oh, and by the way...

U.S. Sues Texas Over Migrant-Arrest Law

The Biden administration Wednesday sued the state of Texas and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, arguing that a new law allowing the state to arrest and deport migrants who cross into the state illegally is an unconstitutional violation of federal-government authority.

“Texas cannot run its own immigration system,” the Department of Justice wrote in its complaint.

The suit argues that the Texas law is pre-empted by federal law and asks that it be invalidated and blocked from taking effect. Abbott signed the bill last month, and it is set to take effect in March.

“Biden sued me today because I signed a law making it illegal for an illegal immigrant to enter or attempt to enter Texas directly from a foreign nation,” Abbott posted Wednesday night on X, formerly known as Twitter. “I like my chances.”

The law’s passage and the Justice Department’s response represent the most forceful standoff yet in a power struggle between Texas and the federal government over enforcement of the U.S.-Mexico border. Under Abbott’s Operation Lone Star border security effort, the state has spent or allocated more than $11 billion since 2021 to deploy state troopers and National Guardsmen to the border, arrest migrants for trespassing on private land, bus migrants to northern cities and erect barriers along the Rio Grande.

The Texas bill, passed by the state legislature in November, makes it a state crime for anyone without authorization to be in the U.S. to cross from Mexico to Texas between a designated port of entry. It allows state and local police to arrest people for such crossings, and for local judges to order the removal of migrants who prefer that to prosecution.

The suit leans on the precedent set by the 2012 Supreme Court case Arizona v. United States in arguing that the federal government has sole authority over immigration into the country and operations at its national borders. Efforts under the new law, it says, intrude on that authority, frustrate U.S. border operations and interfere with foreign relations.

Rest of article here: U.S. Sues Texas Over Migrant-Arrest Law

[djAdvocate]

i figured that one was coming.

the optics are bad on that ruling, of course.

Biden is going to have to address this "issue".

it is a bunch of bullshit. but he is going to have to address it.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2024 10:32:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 5, 2024 0:10:12 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Good for Abbot. NJ should tell NYC they are coming. He has found a good work-a-round to his problem. Maybe when these states/cities have had enough of this they will force their congress people fix the problem.

Oh, and by the way...

U.S. Sues Texas Over Migrant-Arrest Law

The Biden administration Wednesday sued the state of Texas and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, arguing that a new law allowing the state to arrest and deport migrants who cross into the state illegally is an unconstitutional violation of federal-government authority.

“Texas cannot run its own immigration system,” the Department of Justice wrote in its complaint.

The suit argues that the Texas law is pre-empted by federal law and asks that it be invalidated and blocked from taking effect. Abbott signed the bill last month, and it is set to take effect in March.

“Biden sued me today because I signed a law making it illegal for an illegal immigrant to enter or attempt to enter Texas directly from a foreign nation,” Abbott posted Wednesday night on X, formerly known as Twitter. “I like my chances.”

he likes his chances?  is he fucking retarded?
his chances are NIL.  
this is clearly not a state right.  speaking of rights.
immigration is a federal issue.
he has no RIGHT to deport people, whatsoever.

[scgal]

Jan 5, 2024 9:30:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2024 8:10:10 GMT -5 scgal said:

None of this has to do with the subject. I was simply stating that healthcare is not a right. 

yes, it does.

2.2 says that we abide by our agreements.
the US is signatory to the UDHR.
the UDHR says that healthcare is a right.
ergo, the US agrees that healthcare is a right (even if you don't).

that is called a syllogism.  it is rock solid.

what i did in your reply is to point out other agreements we uphold, and asking you a simple question:

do you think that the US should abide by it's agreements?
yes or no?

First of all it is not rock solid. The udhr is an agreement not a law. So it can be agreed upon that healthcare is a right it is not legally a right. That is the only thing rock solid.

Yes we should abide by our agreements unless for some reason that we see fit not too. I cannot go into specifics on this as to I cannot fathom all circumstance that would involve that. 

Now back to what I said, whether I think it we should abide by our agreements is not the topic, it was is healthcare a right and I still stand by no it is not. An agreement does not make it a right.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2024 10:48:43 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 5, 2024 9:30:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes, it does.

2.2 says that we abide by our agreements.
the US is signatory to the UDHR.
the UDHR says that healthcare is a right.
ergo, the US agrees that healthcare is a right (even if you don't).

that is called a syllogism.  it is rock solid.

what i did in your reply is to point out other agreements we uphold, and asking you a simple question:

do you think that the US should abide by it's agreements?
yes or no?

First of all it is not rock solid. The udhr is an agreement not a law. So it can be agreed upon that healthcare is a right it is not legally a right. That is the only thing rock solid.

Yes we should abide by our agreements unless for some reason that we see fit not to.

that sounds like NO to me.
and that is fine.

if i agree to be civil to you, so long as it suits me, that is not really an agreement to be civil to you.  it is just me doing what i do.  and if you don't like it, tough beans.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2024 10:48:43 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jan 5, 2024 9:30:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes, it does.

2.2 says that we abide by our agreements.
the US is signatory to the UDHR.
the UDHR says that healthcare is a right.
ergo, the US agrees that healthcare is a right (even if you don't).

that is called a syllogism.  it is rock solid.

what i did in your reply is to point out other agreements we uphold, and asking you a simple question:

do you think that the US should abide by it's agreements?
yes or no?

Now back to what I said, whether I think it we should abide by our agreements is not the topic, it was is healthcare a right and I still stand by no it is not. An agreement does not make it a right.

no, an agreement is not a right, generally speaking.

that is why i asked you if you think we should abide by our agreements.

if we have established that the answer is YES, then we should abide by the UDHR.

if the answer is NO, then i am free to bring WMD into the country, i guess.
that's good news.
i have been wanting some SAM's to shoot down drones.

[djAdvocate]

i should point out that our "non binding international agreements" are guidance documents. they inform us of what we SHOULD do. and, indeed, that is how they generally work. thus, there is a large body of national and international law that follows the UDHR.

some countries do better with this stuff than others.

and then there are the shithole countries, and the countries that seem hell bent on becoming shithole countries, like the US. actually the US is fairly unique in that we were way ahead of the rest of the world, in 1973. i can't think of many other countries that have unwound as far as we have during that time, right off hand. maybe Poland?

[jerseygirl]

DIL is Chinese and is now a citizen. They have a 6 month old and are hoping to have her mom and little sister visit from China for a month. Mom’s visa was turned down probably because of worries she would overstay visa. DIL is very frustrated since she sees thousands including Chinese coming over the southern border daily. Just say asylum seeker and go into US with court date sometime in years meantime here with varying benefit eligibility.

DIL works translating Mandarin for these border crossers. She feels the US government is extremely unfair in how people trying to comply with rules are treated poorly in comparison with those taking advantage of very loose asylum

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2024 12:34:27 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

DIL is Chinese and is now a citizen. They have a 6 month old and are hoping to have her mom and little sister visit from China for a month. Mom’s visa was turned down probably because of worries she would overstay visa. DIL is very frustrated since she sees thousands including Chinese coming over the southern border daily. Just say asylum seeker and go into US with court date sometime in years meantime here with varying benefit eligibility.

DIL works translating Mandarin for these border crossers. She feels the US government is extremely unfair in how people trying to comply with rules are treated poorly in comparison with those taking advantage of very loose asylum

is she aware that 90% of asylum claims are rejected (resulting in deportation) in the US, or is she a FOX News viewer?

[djAdvocate]

it is pretty clear what is going on here.

our immigration system needs overhauling to allow people to enter. the exact opposite is happening. one by one, the channels for entering the US are being closed. what will end up happening is what happened to Shogun Japan- the country will stagnate without an influx from outside. it is how we have managed to grow for centuries without interruption. every economist recognizes that. but we are apparently going to throw ourselves into the arms of jingoists and nativists.

#sad

[jerseygirl]

Jan 16, 2024 17:14:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 16, 2024 12:34:27 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

DIL is Chinese and is now a citizen. They have a 6 month old and are hoping to have her mom and little sister visit from China for a month. Mom’s visa was turned down probably because of worries she would overstay visa. DIL is very frustrated since she sees thousands including Chinese coming over the southern border daily. Just say asylum seeker and go into US with court date sometime in years meantime here with varying benefit eligibility.

DIL works translating Mandarin for these border crossers. She feels the US government is extremely unfair in how people trying to comply with rules are treated poorly in comparison with those taking advantage of very loose asylum

is she aware that 90% of asylum claims are rejected (resulting in deportation) in the US, or is she a FOX News viewer?

thinking that 90% is after the person has been allowed to enter and stay in country till court case - maybe 5 years. And what % actually show up for the court case on asylum?
Really you’re saying that 90% of the migrants who show up at border and ask for asylum are rejected and deported?
No she doesn’t watch Fox News and think she probably knows more than you about this. She’s speaking to these people almost every day

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2024 17:44:59 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Jan 16, 2024 17:14:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is she aware that 90% of asylum claims are rejected (resulting in deportation) in the US, or is she a FOX News viewer?

thinking that 90% is after the person has been allowed to enter and stay in country till court case - maybe 5 years. And what % actually show up for the court case on asylum?
Really you’re saying that 90% of the migrants who show up at border and ask for asylum are rejected and deported?
No she doesn’t watch Fox News and think she probably knows more than you about this. She’s speaking to these people almost every day

average is one year.  it only takes 5 years if your asylum is GRANTED.
since the average is 1 year, and we know that 90% are deported, if we assume that the other 10% are 5 years:

0.9*(t) + 0.1*(5) = 1 => the average time for deportation is 200 days.

and yes, that is precisely right on the 90%.  ask her if she knows that.  it might ease her mind a little bit to know that IF she just wandered across the border seeking asylum she would sit in a camp for 200 days, and 90% of the time she would be deported, and see if she still thinks it is "easy street".  

i am sure that any naturalized citizen knows more about that process than i do.  i know that it can take up to 10 years and is a pain in the ass.  that is all i really know.  but i seem to know quite a bit more about the asylum system than most posters here, do.  i am PRESUMING it is because of the massive amount of misinformation out there on the subject, but i don't really know or care.  i have my very limited knowledge, which i offer to you and your family at no charge, in the hopes of easing your mind about how NOT easy it is to pass through the US asylum system.  hopefully it will help you and your family sleep better at night knowing that the asylum system is FAR more difficult than naturalization, and FAR less likely to produce the desired outcome.

[djAdvocate]

PS- i assumed that she was naturalized, but then i re-read. if she married your son, then she was naturalized through that process, which i think is about as easy as it gets in terms of legal migration.

correct me if i am wrong.

[jerseygirl]

So you’re saying most sit in a camp for 200 days. Who are all the thousands showing up in NYC (and now NJ on way to NYC)? Overflow from the 200 days in camp? Obviously the little Texas and Arizona towns are overwhelmed. Even NYC is overwhelmed and financially desperate . So even 90% deported still leaves multitudes getting to the US while those following the rules are frustrated

And I do think the US needs lots of people coming here. for past 30 years it’s been not efficient and much more past 2-3 years it’s been chaos

I certainly don’t have answers and certainly no expertise but our government is a failure for this problem
I’m just an observer seeing what seems to be chaos at the southern border and a nearby city being overwhelmed both financially and physically

[jerseygirl]

Jan 16, 2024 19:44:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- i assumed that she was naturalized, but then i re-read. if she married your son, then she was naturalized through that process, which i think is about as easy as it gets in terms of legal migration.

correct me if i am wrong.

Yes through marriage
She’s also trying to help friends and college/graduate schoolclassmates from China legally come here

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2024 19:56:48 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Jan 16, 2024 19:44:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- i assumed that she was naturalized, but then i re-read. if she married your son, then she was naturalized through that process, which i think is about as easy as it gets in terms of legal migration.

correct me if i am wrong.

Yes through marriage
She’s also trying to help friends and college/graduate schoolclassmates from China legally come here

nightmare.

we need immigration reform.  badly.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2024 19:55:02 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

So you’re saying most sit in a camp for 200 days. Who are all the thousands showing up in NYC (and now NJ on way to NYC)? Overflow from the 200 days in camp? 

i don't pretend to know.

i would PRESUME that they have asylum hearings at a later date.

let's say for sake of argument that the average number of asylum seekers per day is 3500.  3150 will stay in camps for AN AVERAGE of 200 days, and then get deported.  that is 350/day that get hearings.  that is about 10,000 per month.  

you could always ask your DIL.  you already claimed she knows more than me.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2024 19:55:02 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

I certainly don’t have answers and certainly no expertise but our government is a failure for this problem
I’m just an observer seeing what seems to be chaos at the southern border and a nearby city being overwhelmed both financially and physically

i had assumed you were in NJ.  wrong?

[Opti]

Jan 16, 2024 19:56:48 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Jan 16, 2024 19:44:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- i assumed that she was naturalized, but then i re-read. if she married your son, then she was naturalized through that process, which i think is about as easy as it gets in terms of legal migration.

correct me if i am wrong.

Yes through marriage
She’s also trying to help friends and college/graduate schoolclassmates from China legally come here

Trump calls that chain migration and intentionally reduced the numbers allowed for that category while in office. I have no idea what the current limit is nor, the backlog from all of us working and living through the pandemic.

[Tiny]

Jan 17, 2024 0:47:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 16, 2024 19:56:48 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Yes through marriage
She’s also trying to help friends and college/graduate schoolclassmates from China legally come here

Trump calls that chain migration and intentionally reduced the numbers allowed for that category while in office. I have no idea what the current limit is nor, the backlog from all of us working and living through the pandemic.

That's interesting. 
Guess Melania's parents made it "under the wire"  2017 to become citizens via chain migration.   (Melania married trump in January 2005  and Barron Trump was born March 20, 2006.  And later in 2006 Melania became a US Citizen.     I guess having an Anchor Baby wasn't good enough.)      

www.npr.org/2018/08/10/637371714/first-ladys-parents-become-u-s-citizens-thanks-to-chain-migration


Or maybe "only special people" should have access to becoming US citizens and being able to use "chain migration"?    And for some people having an Anchor Baby isn't a bad thing... 

[jerseygirl]

Jan 17, 2024 0:47:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 16, 2024 19:56:48 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Yes through marriage
She’s also trying to help friends and college/graduate schoolclassmates from China legally come here

Trump calls that chain migration and intentionally reduced the numbers allowed for that category while in office. I have no idea what the current limit is nor, the backlog from all of us working and living through the pandemic.

Chain migration as far as I know is for family, not friends and colleagues

[djAdvocate]

Jan 17, 2024 13:23:01 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Jan 17, 2024 0:47:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Trump calls that chain migration and intentionally reduced the numbers allowed for that category while in office. I have no idea what the current limit is nor, the backlog from all of us working and living through the pandemic.

Chain migration as far as I know is for family, not friends and colleagues

right.  like when Melania got her parents here.

[billisonboard]

Jan 17, 2024 13:23:01 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Jan 17, 2024 0:47:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Trump calls that chain migration and intentionally reduced the numbers allowed for that category while in office. I have no idea what the current limit is nor, the backlog from all of us working and living through the pandemic.

Chain migration as far as I know is for family, not friends and colleagues

I thought the same and then Googled it. It is from region to region as well.

[tbop77]

But that’s the same reason some House Republicans have opposed the package, arguing it would not only open the door to additional Ukraine aid, which several oppose, but that it could help Biden’s reelection prospects and take away a politically salient issue for Trump to campaign on.




www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-weighs-in-on-border-security-deal-adding-new-pressure-to-republicans-in-congress/ar-BB1h1ksg?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=360bf31c9b7b4ef7ab8e690fe2fc76e0&ei=17

That is what I have thought all along.  They want to keep using these people as political pawns.  

[Tennesseer]

Feel free to wrap Governor Abbott up in the to be removed razor wire.  Let's see how he likes it.

Supreme Court rules border agents can remove razor wire erected by Texas

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the federal government can remove razor wire erected on the U.S.-Mexico border by Texas law enforcement, which the government argued illegally prevented them from managing the border.

The 5-4 decision vacated an appeals court ruling last month that allowed the wire to stay amid a continued legal standoff over border jurisdiction.

Chief Justice John Roberts led the majority, alongside justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, with the remaining justices in dissent.

The conflict over the border escalated earlier this month when the Texas National Guard and the Texas Department of Public Safety erected fences and razor wire in a riverside park in Eagle Pass, Texas, a migrant crossing hotspot. The state law enforcement prevented U.S. Border Patrol officers from accessing the park, which also contains the region’s main boat ramp.

It again became more dire after three migrants, a woman and two children, drowned in the Rio Grande just outside the park, with Border Patrol officials claiming that members of the Texas National Guard prevented the federal officials from accessing the river and saving them. Texas officials denied responsibility.

Supreme Court rules border agents can remove razor wire erected by Texas

[djAdvocate]

interesting ruling.

[ripvanwinkle]

Jan 22, 2024 15:54:14 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

"The conflict over the border escalated earlier this month when the Texas National Guard and the Texas Department of Public Safety erected fences and razor wire in a riverside park in Eagle Pass, Texas, a migrant crossing hotspot. The state law enforcement prevented U.S. Border Patrol officers from accessing the park, which also contains the region’s main boat ramp".


Supreme Court rules border agents can remove razor wire erected by Texas

Is the 50 acre Eagle Pass Shelby State Park a recognized authorized entry point or just a part of the entry point at Eagle Pass? It says its a "hot spot" but I'm unclear if it's a official entry point. If its a State Park, can't a state close it for public use and put up a fence? Couldn't the migrants could go upstream or downstream of the park and enter the official border crossing there.

A few years back my state closed 2 state parks due to budgets and put up fences and blocked the access roads. They are reopened now but I see this as the same thing. A state has the right to close any state parks.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 22, 2024 21:42:27 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Jan 22, 2024 15:54:14 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

"The conflict over the border escalated earlier this month when the Texas National Guard and the Texas Department of Public Safety erected fences and razor wire in a riverside park in Eagle Pass, Texas, a migrant crossing hotspot. The state law enforcement prevented U.S. Border Patrol officers from accessing the park, which also contains the region’s main boat ramp".


Supreme Court rules border agents can remove razor wire erected by Texas

Is the 50 acre Eagle Pass Shelby State Park a recognized authorized entry point or just a part of the entry point at Eagle Pass? It says its a "hot spot" but I'm unclear if it's a official entry point. If its a State Park, can't a state close it for public use and put up a fence? Couldn't the migrants could go upstream or downstream of the park and enter the official border crossing there.

A few years back my state closed 2 state parks due to budgets and put up fences and blocked the access roads. They are reopened now but I see this as the same thing. A state has the right to close any state parks.

If the closing of any land, park, etc. by abbott along the Texas/Mexico border interferes with the Border Patrol's work it is illegal on Texas's part. The Border Patrol is federal. Abbott's national guard is state.

Were immigrants from central America entering the U.S. through your two closed and fenced state parks?