U.S. Border and Immigration

[Bogative]

Not a lie. The legislation, per your source, would mandate border closings when certain thresholds are met. The bill’s objective is to prevent surges that overwhelm federal authorities.

No, it does not. If 5000 per day show up for one week straight, the legislation mandates that the border is closed to illegals. There are 0 restrictions on asylum-seekers who come into ports of entry unless the number reaches 8500 in any single day.

If that number is met, then a minimum of 1400 asylum-seekers will still be allowed in and an unrestricted number of people who can prove they are being persecuted will also be allowed in.

The source said if the new legislation were in effect, the border would be shut down now to illegal migrants. Another source familiar with the matter said that certain migrants would be allowed to stay if they show they are fleeing persecution — and that there would still be a minimum of 1,400 asylum applications that could be processed though legal ports of entry while the emergency authorities are in effect.

 

[ahhell]

No, it's the majority of them. How do you think he got to be the leader? He feeds from them and they feed from him. It's not just despondent poor people left behind by the system. The majority of college-educated whites vote for him. Across all economic classes. That's not "I was left behind". that's "A black succeeded and I'm pissed off".

Do you have a source for that? I can only find that level of education for party membership but not on who actually voted for anyone. Found something

.It’s because of those gains among white voters with a college degree — where he built on and expanded the improvement Clinton had made. In 2012, Obama won an estimated 46 percent of these voters, in 2016 Clinton won 50 percent of them, and in 2020, Biden won 54 percent of them.

“The dominant takeaway, from our data and others, is that white college graduates and white suburban voters have turned solidly against Donald Trump’s Republican party,” the authors write.

https://www.vox.com/2021/5/10/22425178/catalist-report-2020-election-biden-trump-demographics

You gotta love VOX, they've got an article "We need to talk about white people that voted for trump" Of course, because talking about the hispanic and black people that voted for trump would be very uncomfortable.

From that article:

According to the exit poll, Trump did better in 2020 with every race and gender except white men.

 

[Donal]

Ya, those day-of exit polls greatly overstated Trump's gains among Latino and Black voters. Pew went back and did a deeper look that included mail-in and early voting. While Trump gained slightly with Latinos (entirely because of non-college-educated), it was about a 3% increase overall. The increase in Black voters for Trump amounts to a rounding error. Democrats also gained among Asian voters.

Looks like I was wrong about the college-educated white vote, although Biden did lose ground there still went mostly for him.

 

[Brainster]

That (proposed) bill seems to say that a the US will accept 5000 criminal violations of the law per day and take those persons into migrant processing facilities inside the US. After that, enforce the law.

Why not just enforce the law?

Because Biden will take flak from his Hispanic caucus and won't be able to say "But I got the Ukraine money in return."

BTW, I sincerely hope the 5000 per day is an exaggeration; that is over a million and half people per year. Anybody who wants to solve homelessness should be up in arms over the situation at the border.

 

[zorro99]

No, it does not. If 5000 per day show up for one week straight, the legislation mandates that the border is closed to illegals. There are 0 restrictions on asylum-seekers who come into ports of entry unless the number reaches 8500 in any single day.

If that number is met, then a minimum of 1400 asylum-seekers will still be allowed in and an unrestricted number of people who can prove they are being persecuted will also be allowed in.

Well, yeah, showing up at a port of entry isn’t an illegal crossing, of course.

 

[zorro99]

Details of the bill just released


https://www.appropriations.senate.g..._security_supplemental_section-by-section.pdf

 

[Bogative]

Well, yeah, showing up at a port of entry isn’t an illegal crossing, of course.

No need to shift the goalposts.

Delvo said the legislation would not shut down the border. To which you replied:

Yes it would. It is the most conservative immigration legislation in modern times. We need to secure the border.

Sen. Chris Murphy, the co-author of the bill, has said

A requirement the President to funnel asylum claims to the land ports of entry when more than 5,000 people cross a day. The border never closes, but claims must be processed at the ports.

I bolded the relevant part to prevent any future confusion you may have.

 

[Bogative]

BTW, I sincerely hope the 5000 per day is an exaggeration;

It's not. Once encounters reach 5000 per day, all others are required to go through ports of entry (unless they are considered emergencies). Ports of entry are then required to allow an additional minimum of 1400 per day. No word on what the maximum is, if any.

https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1754292307677913264?s=20

 

[zorro99]

It's not. Once encounters reach 5000 per day, all others are required to go through ports of entry (unless they are considered emergencies). Ports of entry are then required to allow an additional minimum of 1400 per day. No word on what the maximum is, if any.

https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1754292307677913264?s=20

The bill requires the border be closed after 5000 “encounters” per day. It does not allow 5000 illegal migrants be allowed in per day. That is a lie spread by opponents.

The bill will help resolve the crisis at the border and has wide bipartisan support.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because Biden will take flak from his Hispanic caucus and won't be able to say "But I got the Ukraine money in return."

BTW, I sincerely hope the 5000 per day is an exaggeration; that is over a million and half people per year. Anybody who wants to solve homelessness should be up in arms over the situation at the border.

Oh come now, you can't ask people to consider more than one policy at a time, let alone the interactions of those policies! We can only think about single things, and then only in total isolation.

 

[lobosrul5]

From a GOP Senator of what the bill will do:

But Republican Senator James Lankford, one of the bill's co-sponsors, refuted claims about that 5,000 figure on Monday on Fox News' Fox and Friends.

"We've got to be able to have something that mandatorily deports everyone rather than actually releases everyone," Lankford said. "That's what this does. Some people are thinking this is somehow like counting 5,000 in every day or releasing them. That's absurd."

He added that if the proposed legislation had been in place already, it would have already resulted in one million fewer illegal immigrants in the country at the present moment.

https://www.newsweek.com/does-border-bill-allow-18-million-migrants-us-what-we-know-1866921

 

[Donal]

Oh come now, you can't ask people to consider more than one policy at a time, let alone the interactions of those policies! We can only think about single things, and then only in total isolation.

The creed of conservatism. "every issue exists on its own". Well, that and "I'll let my children die before I let those people have anything".

 

[Delvo]

The bill requires the border be closed after 5000 “encounters” per day. It does not allow 5000 illegal migrants be allowed in per day. That is a lie spread by opponents.

Stopping after 5000 is allowing 5000 first, then stopping. Stopping at 5000 instead is allowing 4999 first, which is not a substantial difference.

The bill will help resolve the crisis at the border and has wide bipartisan support.

Bipartisanship has nothing to do with anythibg... at best. (At worst, it can mean they've both agreed to do something that's good only for themselves but bad for the rest of us.)

 

[Trebuchet]

Stopping after 5000 is allowing 5000 first, then stopping. Stopping at 5000 instead is allowing 4999 first, which is not a substantial difference.

Bipartisanship has nothing to do with anythibg... at best. (At worst, it can mean they've both agreed to do something that's good only for themselves but bad for the rest of us.)

An "encounter" does not mean "allowing in". It can be stopping and turning back, stopping and arresting, etc. And you can have multiple encounters with the same individual(s).

 

[Donal]

The bill requires the border be closed after 5000 “encounters” per day. It does not allow 5000 illegal migrants be allowed in per day. That is a lie spread by opponents.

The bill will help resolve the crisis at the border and has wide bipartisan support.

It doesn't address the reasons people are coming and find humane ways of housing them, which is what would address the crisis.

And you know what else was bipartisan? the 1994 Crime Bill and the Invasion of Iraq.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It doesn't address the reasons people are coming and find humane ways of housing them, which is what would address the crisis.

I know this sounds callous... but why on earth do you think the US should be obligated to address the problems of other countries? Or why we should be obligated to house and support people who want to come here, when we can't even adequately house and support our own citizens?

The US is pretty immigrant-friendly, even when we're being stricter about it. It's not like the US is being stingy about it - we let in a lot of refugees and (genuine) asylum seekers, and it's not actually difficult to get work visas. I don't know why so many people seem to think that the US should just throw open the doors and let in anyone who wants to move here for whatever reason. Other countries don't do that.

Anybody remember way back in 2016 when Trump was running, and there were so many people saying "If Trump wins, I'm moving to <insert foreign country here>"? Did anyone actually go look at the immigration policies of other countries and see if they'd let you in just because you don't want to be in the US anymore? Yeah... most americans wouldn't be allowed to immigrate just because they don't like it here.

 

[Donal]

I know this sounds callous... but why on earth do you think the US should be obligated to address the problems of other countries?

Because they are our fellow man? Because it would be a long-term benefit and more cost-effective than sending armed enforcers to hunt down all the brown people? Because we have a hand in a lot of those problems

Or why we should be obligated to house and support people who want to come here, when we can't even adequately house and support our own citizens?

Those problems are correlated. But not in the way you think.

The US is pretty immigrant-friendly,

That seems to upset you

even when we're being stricter about it.

Not if your friend in Texas gets his way

It's not like the US is being stingy about it - we let in a lot of refugees and (genuine) asylum seekers,

and it seems a real bee in your bonnet.

and it's not actually difficult to get work visas.

Based on your experience wth the process?

I don't know why so many people seem to think that the US should just throw open the doors and let in anyone who wants to move here for whatever reason. Other countries don't do that.

Nobody here has advocated that. You can put away the hyeprbole. Then, we can have the grown-up conversation.

Anybody remember way back in 2016 when Trump was running, and there were so many people saying "If Trump wins, I'm moving to <insert foreign country here>"? Did anyone actually go look at the immigration policies of other countries and see if they'd let you in just because you don't want to be in the US anymore? Yeah... most americans wouldn't be allowed to immigrate just because they don't like it here.

Yes, Americans are stupid about immigration in and out of the country. We just have awareness about the outside world.

I already have dual citizenship and in-demand skills and it would be really difficult to pick up and move my family.

 

[zorro99]

Trump and his supporters don’t want to solve the border crisis since they won’t have anything to whine about come election time.

 

[Donal]

Trump and his supporters don’t want to solve the border crisis since they won’t have anything to whine about come election time.

Because they don't have any ideas or plans for actually helping Americans. they just have fear and outrage

 

[Donal]

Remember that trucker convoy that called themselves "God's army"?( Because God hates immigrants.) The ones that were heading down to the border and were going to set things right themselves? The one we were told would be 700,000 strong?

Ya, it went about as well as expected.

First off, the "Convoy" consisted of 19 vehicles. I suppose 700,000 people could fit in 19 vehicles if those vehicles were Imperial Star destroyers. These seemed to be a tour bus and a handful of SUVs and sedans.

and they didn't actually go to the border

The convoy arrives and the organizer breaks the news to people that they actually aren't going to the border like they were told, instead they were going to a “children’s ranch” where they were going to “have prayer,” and exercise their first amendment rights by having a “redress of grievances against an out of control federal government.” He tells them that since God is in control, he can’t exactly tell them what it’s going to look like when they get down there.

But a handful actually left the group and headed to Eagle Point themselves. And...well..

reporter: “tell me more about eye-opening. was it what you expected? is it better? is it worse?”
chucklehead: “it’s not what I expected, but then again I don’t know what I expected. I can tell you it’s not as bad as what I thought, so that’s kind of eye-opening.”

But hey, despite all that, these fine Christian patriots were treated to appearances by Sarah Palin and Ted "I adopted a teenage girl so I could legally have sex with her" Nugent. So, ya, very productive trip.