ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Feb 3, 2024 20:13:59 GMT -5
do me a favor. read back through this thread. you will find a post where i said "Arizona?" in response to your question about what happens if they closed the Texas border, how would they get in? i will add the supplemental remark here: Texas is not an island. this is WHY we need federal enforcement, rip. without it, this is pointless. since the time i made this comment i would add this: Biden said he would close the border on DAY ONE if Congress gave him the authority. Congress has the opportunity in it's hand right now, but your deranged leader is stopping it. i hope he pays for it, dearly. but given the complete lack of outrage on your part, i kinda doubt it. the rest of us are giving you and the GOP blank stares right now.  Rip's status on his profile page reads: I await Rip's reply to you. Rip may help evil succeed based upon his answer. Oh hell, I'll support any party that closes the border to this mass invasion. Biden said he would close the border on DAY ONE if Congress gave him the authority. He doesn't need congress authority. Just do like Trump did with his executive orders. Reinstate the measures Trump did. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,998
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Feb 3, 2024 20:29:44 GMT -5
Rip's status on his profile page reads: I await Rip's reply to you. Rip may help evil succeed based upon his answer. Oh hell, I'll support any party that closes the border to this mass invasion. Biden said he would close the border on DAY ONE if Congress gave him the authority. He doesn't need congress authority. Just do like Trump did with his executive orders. Reinstate the measures Trump did. Trunp closed the border? What fantasy land do you live in? People cane across the border every day when he was president. He separated families, remember? Some of those children still haven’t been reunited, but you don’t care? You read and listen to the slanted right wing media, and appear to be unwilling to absorb facts that contradict your beliefs. The solution is actually quite simple. Crack down on the people who employ these migrants. But conservatives say zilch about that because they would have to crack down on businesses who support them |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 3, 2024 20:44:35 GMT -5
Rip's status on his profile page reads: I await Rip's reply to you. Rip may help evil succeed based upon his answer. Oh hell, I'll support any party that closes the border to this mass invasion. Biden said he would close the border on DAY ONE if Congress gave him the authority. He doesn't need congress authority. Just do like Trump did with his executive orders. Reinstate the measures Trump did. I sure hope you have a paid subscription to the Washington Post because the linked Washington Post article shoots down your above nonsense. After this, you will need to research on your own. Your "Comfortably uninformed." is shining quite brightly. I will though post the last three or four paragraphs for you. Article dated February 1, 2024. Does Biden need a new law to ‘shut down the border’?The White House says a new law is needed and faulted congressional Republicans for still insisting on executive actions. “For over 6 years, Speaker Johnson has stressed that securing the border can only be achieved by granting presidents new legal authority,” said Andrew Bates, deputy White House press secretary. “He was explicit about this when he endorsed the Trump Administration’s efforts to pass new laws, and he even went as far as to introduce his own bills. Rep. [Steve] Scalise agreed with Speaker Johnson, saying in 2019: ‘It takes congressional action, you need to change the law.’ As recently as December, Speaker Johnson wrote to President Biden, ‘Statutory reforms designed to restore operational control at our southern border must be enacted.’ Instead of twisting himself into a pretzel to delay a bipartisan, historic border security breakthrough for the American people — including urgently-needed funding for hiring law enforcement officers and stopping fentanyl trafficking — Speaker Johnson should remember what he said in October: ‘we must come together and address the broken border.’” The Bottom LineAs Trump learned, to his frustration, a long-standing framework of federal statutes, regulations and court precedents governs how U.S. officials handle asylum claims. Whether Biden acted too hastily to unwind Trump’s patchwork of fixes and whether Trump’s actions were effective — or ineffective and cruel — is a matter of opinion. But the federal courts repeatedly trimmed Trump’s immigration sails by saying he was overstepping the law — which suggests a new law might be necessary. As Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), the chief Republican negotiator, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday: “Even while [Trump] was president, he was specifically asking Congress to change the standard on asylum to be able to tighten up, to be able to give them additional funds for deportation. All of those things are in this bill.” Does Biden need a new law to ‘shut down the border’? |
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Feb 4, 2024 0:07:34 GMT -5
Oh hell, I'll support any party that closes the border to this mass invasion. Biden said he would close the border on DAY ONE if Congress gave him the authority. He doesn't need congress authority. Just do like Trump did with his executive orders. Reinstate the measures Trump did. Trunp closed the border? What fantasy land do you live in? People cane across the border every day when he was president. He separated families, remember? Some of those children still haven’t been reunited, but you don’t care? You read and listen to the slanted right wing media, and appear to be unwilling to absorb facts that contradict your beliefs. The solution is actually quite simple. Crack down on the people who employ these migrants. But conservatives say zilch about that because they would have to crack down on businesses who support them I didn't say Trump closed the order. He at least made a effort with the remain in Mexico MPP program. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,998
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Feb 4, 2024 8:16:09 GMT -5
Trunp closed the border? What fantasy land do you live in? People cane across the border every day when he was president. He separated families, remember? Some of those children still haven’t been reunited, but you don’t care? You read and listen to the slanted right wing media, and appear to be unwilling to absorb facts that contradict your beliefs. The solution is actually quite simple. Crack down on the people who employ these migrants. But conservatives say zilch about that because they would have to crack down on businesses who support them I didn't say Trump closed the order. He at least made a effort with the remain in Mexico MPP program. And now he is interfering with the passage of a bill that would be more effective than anything he tried to do, and you agree with him even though you want the border closed. How does that make any sense? ETA: conservatives hated when Obama ruled by executive orders. Yet it was ok when Trump did it. Hypocrisy much? |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 4, 2024 9:10:42 GMT -5
Trunp closed the border? What fantasy land do you live in? People cane across the border every day when he was president. He separated families, remember? Some of those children still haven’t been reunited, but you don’t care? You read and listen to the slanted right wing media, and appear to be unwilling to absorb facts that contradict your beliefs. The solution is actually quite simple. Crack down on the people who employ these migrants. But conservatives say zilch about that because they would have to crack down on businesses who support them I didn't say Trump closed the order. He at least made a effort with the remain in Mexico MPP program. In December 2018, the Trump administration announced the creation of a new program called the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP 1.0)—often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” program. The program went into effect in January 2019 and was used to send nearly 70,000 migrants back to Mexico. Citing widespread reports of severe human rights violations and seriously logistical problems caused by the program, the Biden administration suspended, and then terminated, the program after President Biden took office. A “reinstated” Remain in Mexico program returned 7,505 people to Mexico from December 2021 to August 2022 as the result of federal court order which was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. The government of Mexico has since indicated that it opposes any attempt by the United States to restart a similar program in the future. Under MPP, individuals who arrived at the southern border and asked for asylum (either at a port of entry or after crossing the border between ports of entry) were given notices to appear in immigration court and sent back to Mexico. They were instructed to return to a specific port of entry at a specific date and time for their next court hearing. MPP was distinct from a separate process known as “metering,” whereby U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials turn asylum seekers away from ports of entry without processing them or providing any specific date or time to return. MPP did not provide due process to migrants. Representation rates for the people subjected to MPP were exceedingly low. Data suggests that just 7.5 percent of individuals subject to MPP 1.0 ever managed to hire a lawyer, though the true representation rate may be even lower because that number includes individuals who were initially placed into MPP and then were later taken out of the program and allowed to enter the United States. The lack of counsel, combined with the danger and insecurity that individuals faced in border towns, made it nearly impossible for anyone subjected to MPP to successfully win asylum. By December 2020, of the 42,012 MPP cases that had been completed under MPP 1.0, only 521 people were granted relief in immigration court. Rest of factual article here: The “Migrant Protection Protocols” |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,723
|
Post by scgal on Feb 4, 2024 9:30:00 GMT -5
electrify the fence and razor wire You can fuck all the way off. Don't pass go, don't collect $200. Just fuck off. Nobody needs your racism here. Hopefully you eventually get banned for it. The only racist between you and I is you. I didn't say anything racist. You may want to twist and turn in into a racist remark that most rasist do but in the end there was nothing racist. With all the hate you spew it wouldn't be suprising you are banned one day. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,723
|
Post by scgal on Feb 4, 2024 9:33:19 GMT -5
It is a difference of opinion on how to deal with an issue. No it wasn't. Perhaps the way she replied to don could be twisted that way. Legit killing Mexican people by electrocution is disgusting. The fact that she replied to the Mexican poster that way and to the non Mexican poster a different way is passive aggressive at best. WHAT killing people never said that. An electrified fence that would knock a horse on its ass will not kill you. I don't care if it is Mexican or any other nationality it just happens that the Mexico border is the issue get over your racist self |
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 31,531
|
Post by andi9899 on Feb 4, 2024 10:01:17 GMT -5
You can fuck all the way off. Don't pass go, don't collect $200. Just fuck off. Nobody needs your racism here. Hopefully you eventually get banned for it. The only racist between you and I is you. I didn't say anything racist. You may want to twist and turn in into a racist remark that most rasist do but in the end there was nothing racist. With all the hate you spew it wouldn't be suprising you are banned one day. Yeah, you're right. I'm the racist. Andi: We need to treat immigrants humanely. Healthcare is a human right. Immigrants are vital to our economy. Don't judge people based on what they look like. Educate all and feed all children regardless of economic status or immigration status. SCG: We should start shooting people at the border. Electrocute them and put up razor wire. Healthcare is not a human right. Brown kids shouldn't be getting the same treatment as white kids. Let them drown. I feel like you're juat grasping at straws at this point. Also, if you look at my profile, I've been here since 2011. Actually before that because we were all on a different board for years before this one was created. I don't think I'm getting banned anytime soon. Check your racism. |
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 31,531
|
Post by andi9899 on Feb 4, 2024 10:17:33 GMT -5
No it wasn't. Perhaps the way she replied to don could be twisted that way. Legit killing Mexican people by electrocution is disgusting. The fact that she replied to the Mexican poster that way and to the non Mexican poster a different way is passive aggressive at best. WHAT killing people never said that. An electrified fence that would knock a horse on its ass will not kill you. I don't care if it is Mexican or any other nationality it just happens that the Mexico border is the issue get over your racist self If delusion was a person, it would be you. "I didn't say kill people, just electrocute them. I didn't say kill people, just shoot them. I didn't say kill people, just let them get caught in razor wire in the river." You need professional help. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 4, 2024 13:09:00 GMT -5
New York Times article dated 10-1-2019. Shoot Migrants’ Legs, Build Alligator Moat: Behind Trump’s Ideas for BorderWASHINGTON — The Oval Office meeting this past March began, as so many had, with President Trump fuming about migrants. But this time he had a solution. As White House advisers listened astonished, he ordered them to shut down the entire 2,000-mile border with Mexico — by noon the next day. The advisers feared the president’s edict would trap American tourists in Mexico, strand children at schools on both sides of the border and create an economic meltdown in two countries. Yet they also knew how much the president’s zeal to stop immigration had sent him lurching for solutions, one more extreme than the next. Privately, the president had often talked about fortifying a border wall with a water-filled trench, stocked with snakes or alligators, prompting aides to seek a cost estimate. He wanted the wall electrified, with spikes on top that could pierce human flesh. After publicly suggesting that soldiers shoot migrants if they threw rocks, the president backed off when his staff told him that was illegal. But later in a meeting, aides recalled, he suggested that they shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down. That’s not allowed either, they told him. “The president was frustrated and I think he took that moment to hit the reset button,” said Thomas D. Homan, who had served as Mr. Trump’s acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, recalling that week in March. “The president wanted it to be fixed quickly.” Mr. Trump’s order to close the border was a decision point that touched off a frenzied week of presidential rages, round-the-clock staff panic and far more White House turmoil than was known at the time. By the end of the week, the seat-of-the-pants president had backed off his threat but had retaliated with the beginning of a purge of the aides who had tried to contain him. Today, as Mr. Trump is surrounded by advisers less willing to stand up to him, his threat to seal off the country from a flood of immigrants remains active. “I have absolute power to shut down the border,” he said in an interview this summer with The New York Times. Rest of article here: Shoot Migrants’ Legs, Build Alligator Moat: Behind Trump’s Ideas for Border |
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Feb 4, 2024 16:54:33 GMT -5
I didn't say Trump closed the order. He at least made a effort with the remain in Mexico MPP program. In December 2018, the Trump administration announced the creation of a new program called the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP 1.0)—often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” program. The program went into effect in January 2019 and was used to send nearly 70,000 migrants back to Mexico. Citing widespread reports of severe human rights violations and seriously logistical problems caused by the program, the Biden administration suspended, and then terminated, the program after President Biden took office. A “reinstated” Remain in Mexico program returned 7,505 people to Mexico from December 2021 to August 2022 as the result of federal court order which was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. The government of Mexico has since indicated that it opposes any attempt by the United States to restart a similar program in the future. Under MPP, individuals who arrived at the southern border and asked for asylum (either at a port of entry or after crossing the border between ports of entry) were given notices to appear in immigration court and sent back to Mexico. They were instructed to return to a specific port of entry at a specific date and time for their next court hearing. MPP was distinct from a separate process known as “metering,” whereby U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials turn asylum seekers away from ports of entry without processing them or providing any specific date or time to return. MPP did not provide due process to migrants. Representation rates for the people subjected to MPP were exceedingly low. Data suggests that just 7.5 percent of individuals subject to MPP 1.0 ever managed to hire a lawyer, though the true representation rate may be even lower because that number includes individuals who were initially placed into MPP and then were later taken out of the program and allowed to enter the United States. The lack of counsel, combined with the danger and insecurity that individuals faced in border towns, made it nearly impossible for anyone subjected to MPP to successfully win asylum. By December 2020, of the 42,012 MPP cases that had been completed under MPP 1.0, only 521 people were granted relief in immigration court. Rest of factual article here: The “Migrant Protection Protocols”I'm not a constitutional scholar but if they are illegals why do they have to have due process? Isn't just being deported due process? |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 4, 2024 17:02:06 GMT -5
The “Migrant Protection Protocols”In December 2018, the Trump administration announced the creation of a new program called the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP 1.0)—often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” program. The program went into effect in January 2019 and was used to send nearly 70,000 migrants back to Mexico. Citing widespread reports of severe human rights violations and seriously logistical problems caused by the program, the Biden administration suspended, and then terminated, the program after President Biden took office. A “reinstated” Remain in Mexico program returned 7,505 people to Mexico from December 2021 to August 2022 as the result of federal court order which was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. The government of Mexico has since indicated that it opposes any attempt by the United States to restart a similar program in the future. Under MPP, individuals who arrived at the southern border and asked for asylum (either at a port of entry or after crossing the border between ports of entry) were given notices to appear in immigration court and sent back to Mexico. They were instructed to return to a specific port of entry at a specific date and time for their next court hearing. MPP was distinct from a separate process known as “metering,” whereby U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials turn asylum seekers away from ports of entry without processing them or providing any specific date or time to return. MPP did not provide due process to migrants. Representation rates for the people subjected to MPP were exceedingly low. Data suggests that just 7.5 percent of individuals subject to MPP 1.0 ever managed to hire a lawyer, though the true representation rate may be even lower because that number includes individuals who were initially placed into MPP and then were later taken out of the program and allowed to enter the United States. The lack of counsel, combined with the danger and insecurity that individuals faced in border towns, made it nearly impossible for anyone subjected to MPP to successfully win asylum. By December 2020, of the 42,012 MPP cases that had been completed under MPP 1.0, only 521 people were granted relief in immigration court. Rest of factual article here: The “Migrant Protection Protocols” I'm not a constitutional scholar but if they are illegals why do they have to have due process? Isn't just being deported due process? Never mind you not being a constitutional scholar. You are not a scholar of anything. Time for you to grow up and educate yourself. Read the fucking article again and again until you understand it. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,998
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Feb 4, 2024 17:10:19 GMT -5
The “Migrant Protection Protocols”In December 2018, the Trump administration announced the creation of a new program called the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP 1.0)—often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” program. The program went into effect in January 2019 and was used to send nearly 70,000 migrants back to Mexico. Citing widespread reports of severe human rights violations and seriously logistical problems caused by the program, the Biden administration suspended, and then terminated, the program after President Biden took office. A “reinstated” Remain in Mexico program returned 7,505 people to Mexico from December 2021 to August 2022 as the result of federal court order which was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. The government of Mexico has since indicated that it opposes any attempt by the United States to restart a similar program in the future. Under MPP, individuals who arrived at the southern border and asked for asylum (either at a port of entry or after crossing the border between ports of entry) were given notices to appear in immigration court and sent back to Mexico. They were instructed to return to a specific port of entry at a specific date and time for their next court hearing. MPP was distinct from a separate process known as “metering,” whereby U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials turn asylum seekers away from ports of entry without processing them or providing any specific date or time to return. MPP did not provide due process to migrants. Representation rates for the people subjected to MPP were exceedingly low. Data suggests that just 7.5 percent of individuals subject to MPP 1.0 ever managed to hire a lawyer, though the true representation rate may be even lower because that number includes individuals who were initially placed into MPP and then were later taken out of the program and allowed to enter the United States. The lack of counsel, combined with the danger and insecurity that individuals faced in border towns, made it nearly impossible for anyone subjected to MPP to successfully win asylum. By December 2020, of the 42,012 MPP cases that had been completed under MPP 1.0, only 521 people were granted relief in immigration court. Rest of factual article here: The “Migrant Protection Protocols” I'm not a constitutional scholar but if they are illegals why do they have to have due process? Isn't just being deported due process? If they are asking for asylum, there is a process laid out in both our laws and international laws. It needs to be followed. And if you say we do not need to follow international law, then no one needs to follow international law, and our countries claims and our citizens rights can be ignored by other countries. Is that ok? In addition, can a governor or the president ignore the Supreme Court? |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 4, 2024 17:23:57 GMT -5
I'm not a constitutional scholar but if they are illegals why do they have to have due process? Isn't just being deported due process? If they are asking for asylum, there is a process laid out in both our laws and international laws. It needs to be followed. And if you say we do not need to follow international law, then no one needs to follow international law, and our countries claims and our citizens rights can be ignored by other countries. Is that ok? In addition, can a governor or the president ignore the Supreme Court? I know you mean well, but stop doing ripvanwinkle's homework. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,998
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Feb 4, 2024 17:46:31 GMT -5
If they are asking for asylum, there is a process laid out in both our laws and international laws. It needs to be followed. And if you say we do not need to follow international law, then no one needs to follow international law, and our countries claims and our citizens rights can be ignored by other countries. Is that ok? In addition, can a governor or the president ignore the Supreme Court? I know you mean well, but stop doing ripvanwinkle's homework. Just trying to make it easier for him. If it is spelled out like you would for an 8 yo, he might learn something |
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Feb 4, 2024 19:39:27 GMT -5
I'm not a constitutional scholar but if they are illegals why do they have to have due process? Isn't just being deported due process? Never mind you not being a constitutional scholar. You are not a scholar of anything. Time for you to grow up and educate yourself. Read the fucking article again and again until you understand it. Ok I read the article not sure what I was to glean from it other than how it was suppose to work. Here were the rules for the program:
"According to the U.S. government’s “guiding principles” for MPP 1.0, certain groups were considered exempt from the MPP 1.0 process:
Unaccompanied children
Citizens or nationals of Mexico
Individuals processed for expedited removal
Individuals in “special circumstances,” including:
Individuals with “known physical/mental health issues”
Individuals with criminal records or a history of violence (why these ones should be allowed in boggles me)
Individuals determined by an asylum officer to be “more likely than not” to face torture or persecution in Mexico on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group
Was this article suppose to change my mind? Still feel they should apply for entry at the US consulate where they are at or the nearest one.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 4, 2024 20:09:23 GMT -5
Never mind you not being a constitutional scholar. You are not a scholar of anything. Time for you to grow up and educate yourself. Read the fucking article again and again until you understand it. Ok I read the article not sure what I was to glean from it other than how it was suppose to work. Here were the rules for the program:
"According to the U.S. government’s “guiding principles” for MPP 1.0, certain groups were considered exempt from the MPP 1.0 process:
Unaccompanied children
Citizens or nationals of Mexico
Individuals processed for expedited removal
Individuals in “special circumstances,” including:
Individuals with “known physical/mental health issues”
Individuals with criminal records or a history of violence (why these ones should be allowed in boggles me)
Individuals determined by an asylum officer to be “more likely than not” to face torture or persecution in Mexico on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group
Was this article suppose to change my mind? Still feel they should apply for entry at the US consulate where they are at or the nearest one.
We have laws. You don't get to change them. Enough of your childish ignorance and whining. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2024 21:43:32 GMT -5
Rip's status on his profile page reads: I await Rip's reply to you. Rip may help evil succeed based upon his answer. Oh hell, I'll support any party that closes the border to this mass invasion. Biden said he would close the border on DAY ONE if Congress gave him the authority. He doesn't need congress authority. Just do like Trump did with his executive orders. Reinstate the measures Trump did. Trump had authority from COVID. he could not have done what he did without if you think otherwise, why did he wait THREE YEARS to exercise his authority? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2024 21:46:04 GMT -5
Trunp closed the border? What fantasy land do you live in? People cane across the border every day when he was president. He separated families, remember? Some of those children still haven’t been reunited, but you don’t care? You read and listen to the slanted right wing media, and appear to be unwilling to absorb facts that contradict your beliefs. The solution is actually quite simple. Crack down on the people who employ these migrants. But conservatives say zilch about that because they would have to crack down on businesses who support them I didn't say Trump closed the order. He at least made a effort with the remain in Mexico MPP program. really. my language skills must be declining. what were you saying HERE\/ Oh hell, I'll support any party that closes the border to this mass invasion. Biden said he would close the border on DAY ONE if Congress gave him the authority. He doesn't need congress authority. Just do like Trump did with his executive orders. Reinstate the measures Trump did. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2024 21:52:09 GMT -5
the numbers mentioned in the MPP article are REALLY LOW.
why are we talking about a program that addresses approximately 5% of the problem?
bizarre.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 4, 2024 22:16:05 GMT -5
For ripvanwinkle. Rip will have to open the link to read it all. Here’s what’s in the Senate’s border security deal
Senate negotiators on Sunday evening released a long-awaited bipartisan deal to address what they called the “security crisis” at the southern border and to stem the surge of as many as 10,000 migrants a day from countries all over the world. The ambitious set of reforms included in the deal is designed to give Customs and Border Patrol agents “operational control” of the border by speeding up the adjudication of asylum claims and giving President Biden and future presidents authority to shut down the border if daily crossing average more than 4,000. Senate negotiators on Sunday evening released a long-awaited bipartisan deal to address what they called the “security crisis” at the southern border and to stem the surge of as many as 10,000 migrants a day from countries all over the world. The ambitious set of reforms included in the deal is designed to give Customs and Border Patrol agents “operational control” of the border by speeding up the adjudication of asylum claims and giving President Biden and future presidents authority to shut down the border if daily crossing average more than 4,000. The proposal would clamp down on the humanitarian parole of migrants into the country, which critics call “catch and release” and would raise the standard for asylum screenings. It also includes provisions to address the flow of fentanyl into the country and to give a path to legal status for Afghan nationals who helped the United States during its 20-plus year war against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Here’s what’s in the deal: New power to close the border The legislation would give the federal government new temporary authority to expel migrants when the average number of daily crossings exceed various thresholds. If the daily average of migrant encounters reaches 4,000, the Department of Homeland Security would have the power to close the border to all migrants who don’t have appointments to seek asylum. If the daily average of crossings reaches 5,000, the Homeland Security Department would be required to close the border to all migrants without appointments. This would also apply if crossings exceed 8,500 on a single day. The border would remain closed until Homeland Security regains the ability to process all of the migrants encountered and operational control is reestablished. The daily number of encounters triggering the new expulsion authority would be calculated on the rolling average over seven days. Migrants who attempt to cross the border two times or more while it’s closed will be banned from entering the United States for a year. The enhanced border emergency authority would not apply to unaccompanied children, or migrants experiencing medical emergencies or an imminent threat to their lives. Rest of what is in the deal here: Here’s what’s in the Senate’s border security deal |
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Feb 4, 2024 23:52:16 GMT -5
Thats a pretty comprehensive agreement but I would have liked to see the number of people allowed in to be 4000 per week not per day. And the overflow wait in Mexico. That would allow the immigration courts to better handle the crush of people
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 4, 2024 23:59:51 GMT -5
Thats a pretty comprehensive agreement but I would have liked to see the number of people allowed in to be 4000 per week not per day. And the overflow wait in Mexico. That would allow the immigration courts to better handle the crush of people This bill is a joint effort of Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. senate. So should the Republican controlled House reject it outright to please trump? Keep in mind no deal will continue the masses of people pouring across the border until at lease until January next year and maybe longer if trump isn't elected president. And if the Republican controlled House rejects it who is at fault for the flood of refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2024 2:41:48 GMT -5
Thats a pretty comprehensive agreement but I would have liked to see the number of people allowed in to be 4000 per week not per day. And the overflow wait in Mexico. That would allow the immigration courts to better handle the crush of people This bill is a joint effort of Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. senate. So should the Republican controlled House reject it outright to please trump? Keep in mind no deal will continue the masses of people pouring across the border until at lease until January next year and maybe longer if trump isn't elected president. And if the Republican controlled House rejects it who is at fault for the flood of refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.? the Senate GOP is only half crazy. i wish i could say the same for the House. prediction: if this hits the floor it will pass. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 5, 2024 11:12:35 GMT -5
This bill is a joint effort of Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. senate. So should the Republican controlled House reject it outright to please trump? Keep in mind no deal will continue the masses of people pouring across the border until at lease until January next year and maybe longer if trump isn't elected president. And if the Republican controlled House rejects it who is at fault for the flood of refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.? the Senate GOP is only half crazy. i wish i could say the same for the House. prediction: if this hits the floor it will pass. I sure hope so. Congress has been a do nothing for their salary the past few years. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,704
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2024 11:15:39 GMT -5
i am not sure that MAGA Mike will let it hit the floor.
but i wouldn't rule it out.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 5, 2024 18:37:10 GMT -5
As conservatives balk, U.S. Border Patrol union endorses Senate immigration dealThe National Border Patrol Council, which endorsed Donald Trump for president in 2020, said the new bipartisan bill "will drop illegal border crossings nationwide." WASHINGTON — As conservatives in Congress have blasted the new bipartisan border agreement for not going far enough, the legislation earned a key endorsement on Monday: the labor union that represents U.S. Border Patrol agents. The National Border Patrol Council — which represents more than 18,000 agents — said the bill would “drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension.” It's a significant statement of support from a group that endorsed former President Donald Trump in 2020 and has repeatedly railed against President Joe Biden’s handling of the border. “While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo,” Brandon Judd, president of the council, said in the statement. “This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage.” Just last week, Judd attended a House Republican roundtable in the Capitol entitled “The Impact of the Biden Border Crisis” and slammed the Biden administration for having “destabilized our Southwest Border.” In less than 24 hours since it was released, the Border Act of 2024 has been ripped apart by Republicans, primarily in the House, who railed against the bill. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and his leadership team called the legislation a “waste of time," warning that it is “dead on arrival” in the House if it passes the Senate. On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., praised Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, the top GOP negotiator of the bill, and urged his colleagues to carefully consider it. Rest of article here: As conservatives balk, U.S. Border Patrol union endorses Senate immigration deal
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,679
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 6, 2024 7:43:38 GMT -5
Well...the big problem with the bill is BIPARTISAN. Any bill that has the work and agreement by both parties is a big NO to MAGA. Trump, MAGA, and conservatives are so afraid this bill will be successful, they are willing to do nothing about the border than give Biden a win.
If that is not the most pathetic was to govern, tell me what is!
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,858
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 6, 2024 8:24:30 GMT -5
A+ for asking that question. A: "what every other nation on Earth has had since the fall of the Berlin Wall" the idea that open borders are an issue for the other 193 nations is ludicrous. that is how it is done. which means you need to manage your migrant population through enforcement. not f(*king walls. Respectfully you are totally wrong about walls. A wall is not saying keep out it, it says use the door. By using the door then you can successfully manage migrant population. The GOP is equally upset with people coming through legal ports of entry. They want to close them down - so this isn’t a great argument. |
|
