• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

U.S. Border and Immigration

Trebuchet

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
43,796
Location
Port Townsend, Washington
Because we don't seem to have a thread about this, despite it being a pretty dominant item on the news; and to avoid further derail in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

Here are some recent posts from the other thread lightly edited to remove on-topic Russia/Ukraine stuff:
Would somebody please summarise for a non-US person why Biden doesn't just give the GOP the border measures they want in return for passing the Ukrainian aid measures?

I know it could go off topic very quickly, so I'm only after the briefest explanation and my left-wing sources never seem to give it. What is it that the GOP wants at the US border which is so intolerable that Biden would rather see Ukraine lose the war?

[disclosure]Former Republican who left the party because of Trump.[/disclosure]

The Democrats tend to favor something resembling open borders, partly for ideological reasons, and partly because they believe that the great majority of immigrants and their descendants will eventually become reliable Democratic voters. Republicans tend to oppose high levels of immigration for the same reasons. Additionally, certain elements of the historical Democratic coalition, notably organized labor, tend to oppose high levels of immigration, because they see immigrants as competitors for jobs.

There's also the question of exactly what House Republicans will accept. Speaker Johnson has stated that they will not compromise, and will only pass the aid bill if it contains everything they want on immigration. I believe he's just posturing, but whether or not that's the case remains to be seen.

Until October 7 of this year, I was confident that a Ukraine aid bill would pass the House even if the Speaker refused to schedule a vote on it. As I've discussed in the past, a House bill can be brought to the floor by means of a discharge petition, if it is signed by a majority of House members. If all Democrats signed such a petition, only a very few Republicans would need to buck the Speaker and sign. However, because the bill will also contain a large amount of aid for Israel, I expect that a significant number of Democrats will oppose it, and I'm far from certain that enough Republicans would sign a petition to compensate.

All that said, I think the Democrats should give the Republicans at least a large chunk of what they want on immigration, partly because Ukraine aid is that important, and partly because taking action would be a net political win for Biden. The great majority of Americans think that the situation at the border is a disaster and would like to see the US government attempt to fix the problem. There would be an outcry from the immigration supporters among the Democrats, of course, but the fact is that very few of those people would vote Republican or stay home and risk another Trump presidency.

Hope this helps.

More accurately, restricted borders with the restrictions based on what will objectively benefit the country most while upholding human rights in the process. "Open borders" is a misleading term, to say the least, not least because of the GOP's misuse. It's also worth noting that the GOP efforts to over-restrict border passage have played a significant role in encouraging crime, which they've then used to justify restricting things more, which encourages ever more crime, which...

Yeah, moving on.



This is fairly certainly closer to the truth - and likely understates the issue at hand, no less. To risk delving into these matters because of their relevance to the Republican excuses to block Ukraine aid...

It's not just the large donors. A large majority of illegal immigrants are employed by Republicans - for example, it's estimated that about 40% of farm laborers in the US are working illegally now. The actual issue in political play was not actually about immigration or legality. Rather, it was more about Democrats being willing to leverage the government so that farm workers are treated as people. People who are essential workers, no less, to the foundation and success of our county. This would normally involve paying them a living wage, for example. Republicans, especially the Republican politicians from more agricultural-based states, have consistently sabotaged efforts to treat these people as people, so that they can be better exploited by Republican business owners (with similar effects in play, albeit less pronounced, among the rest of the employers of those who lack legal status). For more general reference, the slave trade would likely still be alive and well if not for current cultural norms suppressing it. The factors that drove it still exist and there are plenty of people who would welcome its return if they thought that they would benefit from such.

Further, the whole border crisis scaremongering is largely an artificial crisis that has its roots in the efforts to prevent farm laborers from being treated as people. It's become a political tool largely created by and then immensely exaggerated for political purposes by Republicans. If you want a really short version why "GOP demands bad," it's because they seem to almost inevitably be aimed at making the actual problems at hand worse in the bigger picture and to further GOP efforts to sabotage the nation and then leverage that for political gain.

If you want some specifics, H.R. 2 would seem to provide some.

Besides the more direct sabotage things, to poke at an example of a wonderfully kind GOP demand that they've packed in -



Ahh, the GOP's rallying cries to save the kids. Ahh, their totally honest claims to want to save the victims of human trafficking. Oh, why won't we think of the children!

Now, with a bit more context to work with, Biden HAS stated that there's willingness to compromise for the sake of Ukraine aid. That Ukraine aid is being tied to an extremist demand to give saboteurs everything they want, including stuff like that, is little more than a demonstration of bad faith, though. For the Republicans, of course, it's likely a win-win, though, given that even if it's a lose-lose for the US, they can pretend to be actually trying to do something about the problems that we face, nevermind that it's likely to generally make things worse.

Now, why are they targeting Ukraine aid in particular? That's harder to say, but there are a few things that can be pointed at as clues. Trump and all the myriad and unfortunately submissive connections he has to Russia is a pretty obvious one. The Republican politicians actually driving the targeting have largely been quite pro-Russia in line with Russia's "God, Guns, and hating Gays" line of courting of the extremist Right-Wing. There's the authoritarian angle, of course, that has often exalted Russia in so many ways for justification and would really, really hate for Russia to flat out lose, on top of the constant embarrassment of Russia being exposed as overwhelmingly weaker than they wanted to pretend. There's the political contrarianism that likely arises from demonizing the Democrats to the point where agreement or compromise is largely counted as a bad thing, no matter what. On the political side, they also want to deny Democrats any "win" at all, as a general matter.

On the propaganda side, they have made fine use of the "Russia is overwhelming and cannot be resisted" mindset that they've encouraged. They've made use of the relative lack of compassion that conservatives tend to have for those they label as "the other." They've made use of the fear based short-sightedness and selfishness about money that they've long encouraged, nevermind that in both cases, the danger and losses are pretty well guaranteed to be significantly greater in the future if action is not taken now.

It's not for nothing that so many saw Republican politicians as a very real threat to Ukraine aid long before most Republicans were willing to admit such. Those like me were hoping to be wrong. Those like Russian propagandists have been trying hard to prove such right.

With apologies for the OT, what makes you think the Republicans actually want or would accept border concessions from Biden? It's the strongest election issue they have. They want -- they NEED the current mess to continue until Nov 2024. Biden could agree to everything they're demanding now and they'll just move the goal posts tomorrow.

So, thoughts: I stand by my statement that the R's really don't want Democrat concessions because the current state of affairs gives them a political advantage, but concede I don't know what the Republicans actually are demanding. Can someone enlighten me? And if you're a "libtard", what exactly is terrible about it?

For the conservatives, exactly what has Biden done to change Trump-era policies from "Best Border Control Ever" to "Open Borders"? Are not more migrants being rounded up than ever before?

I probably won't participate much in this thread, but I promise to read every post, including from those on The List That Shall Not Be Named, and try to learn from it, responding where I can.
 
There will never be a "wall." Other than that....

Among other things, the Senate Republican proposal would resume construction of a border wall -- former President Donald Trump's signature goal -- in addition to deeming large numbers of migrants ineligible for asylum. It would also revive a controversial policy under which asylum seekers are told to remain in Mexico while their immigration case is heard.
Port of Entry: Forces migrants who are requesting asylum to make their request at a port of entry, which will
allow Border Patrol to focus on dangerous drug smugglers and criminals.
Credible Fear Standard: Raises the asylum “credible fear of persecution” initial screening standard from
“significant possibility” to “more likely than not,” weeding out non-meritorious claims earlier in the
asylum process. Allows asylum officers to deny unwarranted credible fear and withholding of removal
claims, and limits administrative appeals of denials
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...der-plan-house-ukraine-bill-looms-2023-11-06/

They want pretty much all possible methods to be used to deny assylum. It won't stop people with applying, so they will keep some pretense of assylum. Hard to say.

I did not see a mention of "catch and release" in the pdf.

No mention of Trump's camps. Because...we would need to house and feed them in camps.
 
Because we don't seem to have a thread about this, despite it being a pretty dominant item on the news; and to avoid further derail in the Russia/Ukraine thread.



Here are some recent posts from the other thread lightly edited to remove on-topic Russia/Ukraine stuff:

















So, thoughts: I stand by my statement that the R's really don't want Democrat concessions because the current state of affairs gives them a political advantage, but concede I don't know what the Republicans actually are demanding. Can someone enlighten me? And if you're a "libtard", what exactly is terrible about it?



For the conservatives, exactly what has Biden done to change Trump-era policies from "Best Border Control Ever" to "Open Borders"? Are not more migrants being rounded up than ever before?



I probably won't participate much in this thread, but I promise to read every post, including from those on The List That Shall Not Be Named, and try to learn from it, responding where I can.
Hasn't it been shown time and time again that the republicans don't have policies? The now classic example was and is the affordable care act. Trump got into power, they had the required votes to get their best ever, cheaper, more people covered, no one forced to have healthcare and ......

It's the same with "the border" there isn't any policy they want, they simply want it for what should be described as propaganda, to scare the population into voting for them because they will "solve it". But they have no actual policy, so there isn't actually anything Biden could haggle over with them. (Well for the literally insane ones, he could offer to set up flamethrowers and machine guns people can rent out for republicans to mow down people, but that's part of the problem, those screaming the most are functionally insane.)
 
Last edited:
Didn't a lot of The WallTM that Trump built previously just fall over?

[IMGw=500]https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PRC_195978052.jpg?quality=90&strip=all[/IMGw]
 
Last edited:
Didn't a lot of The WallTM that Trump built previously just fall over?

[IMGw=500]https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PRC_195978052.jpg?quality=90&strip=all[/IMGw]

Trump has a history of hiring only the best contractors, and paying them well!


(A lifetime in engineering and construction has shown me that when you hire the lowest bidder you almost always get the cheapest and poorest quality work.)
 
Title 42: Trump-era border policy creates headache for Biden
Hundreds of thousands of people have been detained at the border in recent months, while more than two million migrants were detained at the border in the 2022 fiscal year that ended on 30 September. That's a 24% jump from the year before.

Experts point to a number of reasons for the increase, including environmental disasters and economic woes in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. In other cases - such as Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela - economic problems have been compounded by political repression.

There are also large numbers of repeat crossings and lingering pandemic-related economic issues across Latin America, experts say.

President Biden's proposal to provide a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented Americans has also been blamed for spurring the record influx at the southern border.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62909392
Chart of detentions:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1632/idt2/idt2/8b5c889e-828c-426b-8075-1215b3205aad/image/816

If the border is "open" how could the detentions go up?

Yes, the citizenship thing is a bit of a bait. Should we just give work visas that have a renewal yearly as labot force is needed?
 
How many departed at the same time?


For fiscal year 2023, there were over 3,000,000 encounters at the border.

Compare that to 142,000 deportations.

The above number does not include the over 600,000 known got-a-ways. That number would be much higher if border patrol agents weren't pulled off of their patrols to work processing facilities.
 
When members of the GOP are explicitly saying they won't help because it would help Biden, what exactly is the idea? That the border is one of the primary problems facing the nation, but addressing it is worse because **** the libs?
 
Because there have been millions and millions of more people to detain.
Yes but even if numbers of immigrants have gone up and even if you can contend that the detention is not sufficient, an increase in the number of detentions simply and obviously is not a sign of an "open border." You can say all sorts of things about how poorly the operation is run, how porous it is, about how it should be better or different, more efficient, more rigorous, more this more that, but to call it "open" is simply a lie. If it's as bad as some say it is, it ought to be possible to explain how and why without having to lie.
 
When members of the GOP are explicitly saying they won't help because it would help Biden, what exactly is the idea? That the border is one of the primary problems facing the nation, but addressing it is worse because **** the libs?


Are you lying or did you not read the article?

Nehls indicated he'd accept only a proposal similar to HR 2, a hardline immigration bill that got zero Democratic votes when it passed the House last year.

"Chuck Schumer has had HR 2 on his desk since July," Nehls said, referring to the Senate majority leader. "And he did nothing with it."

HR 2 addresses the border.
 
Yes but even if numbers of immigrants have gone up and even if you can contend that the detention is not sufficient, an increase in the number of detentions simply and obviously is not a sign of an "open border." You can say all sorts of things about how poorly the operation is run, how porous it is, about how it should be better or different, more efficient, more rigorous, more this more that, but to call it "open" is simply a lie. If it's as bad as some say it is, it ought to be possible to explain how and why without having to lie.

There have been at least 10,000,000 crossings in the last three years and your issue is someone using the phrase "open" to describe the border when there have been a few hundred thousand detentions? Ridiculous.


According to the article I posted earlier:
In fiscal 2021, there were at least 308,655 known, reported gotaways; in fiscal 2022, 606,150; in fiscal 2023 at least 540,000 so far, he says, but that number’s on track to exceed one million.
That's over 1,500,000 known illegal crossings in 3 years. By my count, it's a hell of a lot more open than it is closed, or "secured" as the current administration likes to say.
 
Are you lying or did you not read the article?



HR 2 addresses the border.

"Let me tell you, I'm not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval rating," is also in the article that you're poorly attempting to cherry pick from.

HR 2 is GOP only nonsense while he's saying he won't do a bipartisan one because it would look good for Biden (or any Democrat).
 
This nation was founded by refugess, built by slaves and "indentured servants" and needs migrants to maintain itself. Tear down the walls and build a series of Ellis Island-style reception centers where migrants are recorded and registered before being sent on to their destinations.

Always remember: this nation is built on stolen land. We have no right to deny others the same opportunity as our ancestors. Migration is a guaranteed right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 
And, of course, all of these hundreds of thousands who pour across the southern border can vote (Democrat, of course). Because the state of Texas doesn't first check the bona fides of anyone who goes into a polling booth. :sarcasm:
 
We need to keep the population under control, and having an essentially & functionally (even if not technically) open border is doing the opposite of that.

Democrats talk like they're against me on that, and act accordingly, by leaving the inflow rate so extremely high. Republicans talk like they agree with me but still act like Democrats about it, never doing anything to change the situation.
 

Back
Top Bottom