The border is not open

[thyme4change]

Feb 3, 2024 14:53:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 3, 2024 10:45:00 GMT -5 scgal said:

That is part of the problem. The wall is there to say use the front door but the rules are being ignored with little to no consequence of it. 

you are so close to being in the same place i am on this.

if you could just admit that walls are stupid.......

people that come here illegally and STAY do so because they know they can live under the radar.  why?  because they can work cash jobs, or use a fake ID to get a real one.

if we stopped that practice, it would pretty much eliminate "illegal" migration.  

however, i should point something out.  the domestic workforce is not growing.  so if you want a growing economy, you are going to have to explain to me how curtailing immigration is going to allow for that.

i know you have thought about it, scgal.  what is your solution?

Preventing the ability to get jobs would also disincentive people who come here legally from staying here illegally. They are a huge percentage of undocumented population.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 6, 2024 8:24:30 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Feb 3, 2024 9:59:15 GMT -5 scgal said:

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.

over half arrive legally and overstay visas.

the issue is not the border.  walls don't stop airplanes.
unless we want to put them across runways.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 6, 2024 8:32:57 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Feb 3, 2024 14:53:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you are so close to being in the same place i am on this.

if you could just admit that walls are stupid.......

people that come here illegally and STAY do so because they know they can live under the radar.  why?  because they can work cash jobs, or use a fake ID to get a real one.

if we stopped that practice, it would pretty much eliminate "illegal" migration.  

however, i should point something out.  the domestic workforce is not growing.  so if you want a growing economy, you are going to have to explain to me how curtailing immigration is going to allow for that.

i know you have thought about it, scgal .  what is your solution?

Preventing the ability to get jobs would also disincentive people who come here legally from staying here illegally. They are a huge percentage of undocumented population.

part of what i am doing is narrowing the argument.  keeping the argument broad makes it seem more plausible.  what you just did is point out that it is not very plausible once you narrow it down.

but if you go down this path with someone opposed to immigration, they will suggest that immigrants are stealing US jobs.  i think stealing is the wrong term.  in fact, i think TAKING is the wrong term.  they are FILLING US Jobs that US citizens would never dream of taking.  taking the argument one step further, the anti-immigrant crowd wants Americans working the fields.  and obviously, since White America will never do it, they are talking about black and brown people doing it.  which starts to sound a lot like slavery.

in other words, taking this argument to it's logical extreme, i think that the anti-immigration community wants a return to slavery (and child labor).

[engineerdoe]

Feb 4, 2024 23:52:16 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

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

So you read:

"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."


and decided that encounters means all 4,000 would be let in?  

[pulmonarymd]

Feb 6, 2024 11:45:52 GMT -5 engineerdoe said:

Feb 4, 2024 23:52:16 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

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

So you read:

"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."


and decided that encounters means all 4,000 would be let in?  

Reading comprehension is not his forte

[Tennesseer]

[Tennesseer]

Fact.

[djAdvocate]

there are only two logical conclusions:

1) the border crisis is ginned up, and doesn't really exist.
2) the GOP doesn't care about the border crisis.

those are the only two possibilities i can see, other than "all of the above".

[Tennesseer]

Washington Post article.

A decade later, history repeats itself on immigration reform

If the 2008 presidential election made Republicans nervous, the 2012 contest made them panic.

Barack Obama had easily defeated Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in his first presidential race, but there were all sorts of ways that victory could be rationalized: President George W. Bush’s unpopularity and the economic crisis. Yes, Obama benefited from an emergent coalition of young and non-White voters, but maybe it was a one-off?

Despite widespread confidence on the right, Obama beat former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to win a second term in office. The same coalition showed up and the only incumbent on the ballot was Obama. Something had shifted, it seemed — and therefore needed to be addressed.Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump
In an interview two days after the election, then-House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested that his party might engage in a targeted effort to appeal to non-White voters.

The issue of immigration, he said, “has been around far too long, and while I believe it’s important for us to secure our borders and to enforce our laws, I think a comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others, can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

Fox News and radio host Sean Hannity had already offered a similar argument.

“If some people have criminal records, you can send them home,” he said, “but if people are here, law-abiding, participating for years, their kids are born here, you know, first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done.”

Speaking to reporters that same month, Obama agreed. It seemed like a strategy was taking shape.

In January 2013, a group of eight senators — soon dubbed the “Gang of Eight” — announced a framework for immigration reform. There were four Republicans, including McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Hannity was a fan. Legislation was introduced and passed the Senate by a nearly 2-to-1 majority that June.

But by then everything was already falling apart. Conservative media — at first in opposition to Hannity and then with his participation — hammered the bill, particularly the pathway to citizenship. Rubio, who embraced his role as the GOP champion of the idea, traveled to New York in January with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to plead with Fox News honchos Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes to give the legislation some breathing room. By June, that ship had sailed.

Washington Post-ABC News polling from July 2013 showed that only half the country backed the Senate bill. Seven in 10 Republicans opposed it. Instead of taking up the bill in the House, most respondents said it should be broken into pieces, which Boehner had already pledged. By October, even Rubio was advocating that approach instead of pushing for the House to work with the legislation the Senate had already passed.

Rest of article here:  A decade later, history repeats itself on immigration reform

[Tennesseer]

Feb 6, 2024 13:08:03 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Fact.

House vote to impeach Mayorkas over the border fails.

[thyme4change]

Feb 3, 2024 18:10:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

again- i will add the following:

if i am a migrant looking for a job in Texas, i simply go through in AZ and set up camp in El Paso. it is less than a day to walk there from AZ. in other words, all of these maddening and illegal gyrations by Abbot have only cut one day out of the influx. if that.

You must walk hella fast. It is like 200 miles from AZ to El Paso. I know New Mexico is a quiet little state - but it takes up quite a bit of space.

[Opti]

Feb 6, 2024 18:07:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Washington Post article.

A decade later, history repeats itself on immigration reform

If the 2008 presidential election made Republicans nervous, the 2012 contest made them panic.

Barack Obama had easily defeated Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in his first presidential race, but there were all sorts of ways that victory could be rationalized: President George W. Bush’s unpopularity and the economic crisis. Yes, Obama benefited from an emergent coalition of young and non-White voters, but maybe it was a one-off?

Despite widespread confidence on the right, Obama beat former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to win a second term in office. The same coalition showed up and the only incumbent on the ballot was Obama. Something had shifted, it seemed — and therefore needed to be addressed.Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump
In an interview two days after the election, then-House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested that his party might engage in a targeted effort to appeal to non-White voters.

The issue of immigration, he said, “has been around far too long, and while I believe it’s important for us to secure our borders and to enforce our laws, I think a comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others, can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

Fox News and radio host Sean Hannity had already offered a similar argument.

“If some people have criminal records, you can send them home,” he said, “but if people are here, law-abiding, participating for years, their kids are born here, you know, first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done.”

Speaking to reporters that same month, Obama agreed. It seemed like a strategy was taking shape.

In January 2013, a group of eight senators — soon dubbed the “Gang of Eight” — announced a framework for immigration reform. There were four Republicans, including McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Hannity was a fan. Legislation was introduced and passed the Senate by a nearly 2-to-1 majority that June.

But by then everything was already falling apart. Conservative media — at first in opposition to Hannity and then with his participation — hammered the bill, particularly the pathway to citizenship. Rubio, who embraced his role as the GOP champion of the idea, traveled to New York in January with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to plead with Fox News honchos Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes to give the legislation some breathing room. By June, that ship had sailed.

Washington Post-ABC News polling from July 2013 showed that only half the country backed the Senate bill. Seven in 10 Republicans opposed it. Instead of taking up the bill in the House, most respondents said it should be broken into pieces, which Boehner had already pledged. By October, even Rubio was advocating that approach instead of pushing for the House to work with the legislation the Senate had already passed.

Rest of article here:  A decade later, history repeats itself on immigration reform

TY for posting. Sad, but a good case study in media and bad actors ... yet again. 

[scgal]

Feb 6, 2024 11:45:52 GMT -5 engineerdoe said:

Feb 4, 2024 23:52:16 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

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

So you read:

"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."


and decided that encounters means all 4,000 would be let in?  

You can read that another way too. They have the power to close the border it doesn't say they have to. 

[scgal]

Feb 7, 2024 10:47:36 GMT -5 scgal said:

Feb 6, 2024 11:45:52 GMT -5 engineerdoe said:

So you read:

"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."


and decided that encounters means all 4,000 would be let in?  

You can read that another way too. They have the power to close the border it doesn't say they have to. 

500 a day would be better

[Tennesseer]

Yesterday's congressional republican votes sure tells the USA they are not serious about our southern border. And republicans fear of trump has been exposed for all to see.

trump pwns the republican party.  

[djAdvocate]

Feb 6, 2024 22:40:26 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Feb 3, 2024 18:10:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

again- i will add the following:

if i am a migrant looking for a job in Texas, i simply go through in AZ and set up camp in El Paso. it is less than a day to walk there from AZ. in other words, all of these maddening and illegal gyrations by Abbot have only cut one day out of the influx. if that.

You must walk hella fast. It is like 200 miles from AZ to El Paso. I know New Mexico is a quiet little state - but it takes up quite a bit of space.

i meant NM. good catch.

[ripvanwinkle]

Since it's been a few days since this bill was presented to congress and the public and promptly rejected I've had a chance to kick back and listen to the media pundits on both sides of the aisle. It was a battle of the media. I work during the day so I didn't see the morning or early afternoon media shows. Just 4pm on.

If you watch CNN, MSNBC or other legacy liberal media pundits and interviews, it was all about how great this bill is/was and couldn't understand how or why the GOP could not like it. 

Conversely on FOX, all their pundits and interviews spelled out how bad it was and why. Both sides made good points but I gave up trying to decide who was right. Haven't watch since. 

I don't recall anyone mentioning it could probably all be stopped if employers had to verify their employees legal status with the I-9 form or risk losing the tax deduction for their wages.

Sounds great to me.

[pulmonarymd]

Feb 8, 2024 1:05:01 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Since it's been a few days since this bill was presented to congress and the public and promptly rejected I've had a chance to kick back and listen to the media pundits on both sides of the aisle. It was a battle of the media. I work during the day so I didn't see the morning or early afternoon media shows. Just 4pm on.

If you watch CNN, MSNBC or other legacy liberal media pundits and interviews, it was all about how great this bill is/was and couldn't understand how or why the GOP could not like it. 

Conversely on FOX, all their pundits and interviews spelled out how bad it was and why. Both sides made good points but I gave up trying to decide who was right. Haven't watch since. 

I don't recall anyone mentioning it could probably all be stopped if employers had to verify their employees legal status with the I-9 form or risk losing the tax deduction for their wages.

Sounds great to me.

To know whether to support this bill, all you need to do is answer 2 simple questions:

1 is the status quo acceptable?
2 does this bill improve things?

If the answer to both is yes, then it should be passed. If the answer to both is no, you don’t care about the problem. Answer yes to 1 and no to 2, you are a hypocrite if you do not propose another solution(aka a Republican). Claiming the president has all the authority he needs is ridiculous. All you republicans who want to build a wall are idiots if you reject this bill. Nobody gets everything they want in a bill given our form of government, so incremental improvement is all we can expect. But republicans wanted a border bill and would not address aid to Ukraine and Israel without one. So now we are back to talking about aid to them being passed separately. All because they refuse to take yes for an answer so Trump can have something to run on. And all you think Trump cares about “America first”?

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

If Biden had forced through the bill himself Republicans would be howling about how the executive branch has too much power and Biden is trying to turn into a dictator by usurping the will of Congress and "the people".

This is 100% on the clown car otherwise known as the House Republican caucus. 

This bill was a bipartisan effort and there were a lot of concessions made by Democrats to get it to the floor.  It is considered to be one of the most conservative immigration bills presented to the floor in decades.   It just didn't involve the stupid idea of a "wall" or banning all immigration till the end of time.

The sole reason it was tanked is because Gatez & Co suck Trump's wiener.  If they passed the bill then it would have been a win for Biden, democrats and not batshit crazy Republicans.   Trump has no platform outside of his racist dog whistles so he needs the  border to remain unsolved so he has something to run on.

You voted for these clowns because you wanted people who would "drain the swamp".  Well you got your wish.   They drained the swamp then proceeded to drag Congress into the 9th circle of hell.  

[billisonboard]

Feb 8, 2024 1:05:01 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Since it's been a few days since this bill was presented to congress and the public and promptly rejected I've had a chance to kick back and listen to the media pundits on both sides of the aisle. It was a battle of the media. I work during the day so I didn't see the morning or early afternoon media shows. Just 4pm on.

If you watch CNN, MSNBC or other legacy liberal media pundits and interviews, it was all about how great this bill is/was and couldn't understand how or why the GOP could not like it. 

Conversely on FOX, all their pundits and interviews spelled out how bad it was and why. Both sides made good points but I gave up trying to decide who was right. Haven't watch since. 

I don't recall anyone mentioning it could probably all be stopped if employers had to verify their employees legal status with the I-9 form or risk losing the tax deduction for their wages.

Sounds great to me.

What I read was it was a bipartisan effort that gave both sides elements of what they saw as the best way forward. I didn't read anything that suggested either side was completely fine with it but it was the best that they could come up with that had any hope of becoming law (until Trump injected himself into it).

[Tennesseer]

Feb 8, 2024 1:05:01 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Since it's been a few days since this bill was presented to congress and the public and promptly rejected I've had a chance to kick back and listen to the media pundits on both sides of the aisle. It was a battle of the media. I work during the day so I didn't see the morning or early afternoon media shows. Just 4pm on.

If you watch CNN, MSNBC or other legacy liberal media pundits and interviews, it was all about how great this bill is/was and couldn't understand how or why the GOP could not like it. 

Conversely on FOX, all their pundits and interviews spelled out how bad it was and why. Both sides made good points but I gave up trying to decide who was right. Haven't watch since. 

I don't recall anyone mentioning it could probably all be stopped if employers had to verify their employees legal status with the I-9 form or risk losing the tax deduction for their wages.

Sounds great to me.

Aren't you the one who is against fining and convicting small business owners for knowingly employing immigrants not allowed to work in the USA? If I remember correctly you din't want the government to punishment and close the small business owner's company because it would put it's employees out of a job.

Punish the small business owners.

[thyme4change]

Feb 8, 2024 1:05:01 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Since it's been a few days since this bill was presented to congress and the public and promptly rejected I've had a chance to kick back and listen to the media pundits on both sides of the aisle. It was a battle of the media. I work during the day so I didn't see the morning or early afternoon media shows. Just 4pm on.

If you watch CNN, MSNBC or other legacy liberal media pundits and interviews, it was all about how great this bill is/was and couldn't understand how or why the GOP could not like it. 

Conversely on FOX, all their pundits and interviews spelled out how bad it was and why. Both sides made good points but I gave up trying to decide who was right. Haven't watch since. 

I don't recall anyone mentioning it could probably all be stopped if employers had to verify their employees legal status with the I-9 form or risk losing the tax deduction for their wages.

Sounds great to me.

They are both right. The bill has both sides getting some things and both sides not getting some things. When the bill is written by a bipartisan team there is no perfect bill and it isn’t entirely bad nor entirely good for either side.

The problem is one side is willing to compromise to improve the country and the other side needs to leave the country’s problems intact to get re-elected.

[ripvanwinkle]

Feb 8, 2024 10:56:01 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Feb 8, 2024 1:05:01 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Since it's been a few days since this bill was presented to congress and the public and promptly rejected I've had a chance to kick back and listen to the media pundits on both sides of the aisle. It was a battle of the media. I work during the day so I didn't see the morning or early afternoon media shows. Just 4pm on.

If you watch CNN, MSNBC or other legacy liberal media pundits and interviews, it was all about how great this bill is/was and couldn't understand how or why the GOP could not like it. 

Conversely on FOX, all their pundits and interviews spelled out how bad it was and why. Both sides made good points but I gave up trying to decide who was right. Haven't watch since. 

I don't recall anyone mentioning it could probably all be stopped if employers had to verify their employees legal status with the I-9 form or risk losing the tax deduction for their wages.

Sounds great to me.

Aren't you the one who is against fining and convicting small business owners for knowingly employing immigrants not allowed to work in the USA? If I remember correctly you din't want the government to punishment and close the small business owner's company because it would put it's employees out of a job.

Punish the small business owners.

Ive change my view. Punish all employers

[Tennesseer]

Feb 8, 2024 22:51:31 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Feb 8, 2024 10:56:01 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aren't you the one who is against fining and convicting small business owners for knowingly employing immigrants not allowed to work in the USA? If I remember correctly you din't want the government to punishment and close the small business owner's company because it would put it's employees out of a job.

Punish the small business owners.

Ive change my view. Punish all employers

[Tennesseer]

Feb 8, 2024 22:51:31 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Feb 8, 2024 10:56:01 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aren't you the one who is against fining and convicting small business owners for knowingly employing immigrants not allowed to work in the USA? If I remember correctly you din't want the government to punishment and close the small business owner's company because it would put it's employees out of a job.

Punish the small business owners.

Ive change my view. Punish all employers

You, me and others agree this would basically stop the gross migration across the southern border. The problem though is Democrats and Republicans in Congress and state governments don't want to deal with this. Probably getting pressure from businesses which want authorites to close one eye on hiring illegal migrant workers. CHeaper labor costs.

[djAdvocate]

bingo. it makes for an unfair advantage.

it is kind of like what Trump does. he finds the soft spot in the law, and then risks not getting caught. up until now, it has worked.

[happyhoix]

Feb 8, 2024 1:05:01 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Since it's been a few days since this bill was presented to congress and the public and promptly rejected I've had a chance to kick back and listen to the media pundits on both sides of the aisle. It was a battle of the media. I work during the day so I didn't see the morning or early afternoon media shows. Just 4pm on.

If you watch CNN, MSNBC or other legacy liberal media pundits and interviews, it was all about how great this bill is/was and couldn't understand how or why the GOP could not like it. 

Conversely on FOX, all their pundits and interviews spelled out how bad it was and why. Both sides made good points but I gave up trying to decide who was right. Haven't watch since. 

I don't recall anyone mentioning it could probably all be stopped if employers had to verify their employees legal status with the I-9 form or risk losing the tax deduction for their wages.

Sounds great to me.

Did you notice how so many GOP Congress people and Trump all announced how horrible the bill was even before the bill was released for people to read it?

Did you also notice the number of GOPers who were positive about the bill and then 24 hours later decided it was horrible?

Wonder why.

[tbop77]

Feb 9, 2024 12:49:44 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Feb 8, 2024 22:51:31 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Ive change my view. Punish all employers

You, me and others agree this would basically stop the gross migration across the southern border. The problem though is Democrats and Republicans in Congress and state governments don't want to deal with this. Probably getting pressure from businesses which want authorites to close one eye on hiring illegal migrant workers. CHeaper labor costs.

Bingo!  We had a steel service location in Texas that would call every so often not to bring them steel.  They had been alerted there was going to be an ICE raid and told their employees to stay home.  The authorities, business owners, etc, they are all in it together.  

[djAdvocate]

i saw something earlier that i thought was great on MeidasTouch. i am not sure that this is it, but i can't listen to audio right now.
if this is not the right video, i will delete this post later:

[Tennesseer]

Republican in the U.S. Congress are a joke.  They want to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas but for months the Republicans have not given Mayorkas the tools to do his job out of fear of trump trashing their possibility of getting reelected.

Republicans should hang there heads in shame.