Biggest law that is needed with the border is codifying h that we will only accept asylum from countries directly touching us. If you are from South America, there are multiple countries you can seek asylum in before you get to the US. If Mexico doesn't think you are credible enough for asylum, then why should we?

The only other thing I would codify (it's already law, but apparently it's not transparent enough) is to state that BP agents can immediately turn away non credible asylum seekers, and any asylum seeker not crossing at a recognized port of entry.

Democrats lie, the media never call them on it and in fact support them, and the only way truth is even discovered is Elon bought X and a conservative posts it.

policywonk98 said:

---

Some of you are making this too complicated.

Those of you that think the "bipartisan" legislation was legit.

Answer this one question.

Is it legal or illegal to cross our borders without the proper paperwork?

Yes or no. It's a simple question.

Is it legal to work here without a legal social security card or visa?

Yes or no. It's a simple question.

Let me give you a hint. People with proper paperwork cross through all available ports of entry with legal paperwork. They don't need to travel any other way.


And when you are the greatest country in world history, seeking asylum because your country is less great is not a reason to seek asylum. The asylum system is mostly fraudulent. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans that also wish they didn't live on abusive situations as well. The world sucks and yes they're absolutely legit asylum scenarios. But those scenarios are not that difficult to ascertain. Allowing the system to be abused makes legit asylum seeking that much harder to carry out. And everyone should be on board with shaming any group that seeks to abuse the system to the detriment of legit asylum cases.

---

This is such a good post. Simple and logical. And 100% correct.

Yes, the progressive leftists and a few chamber of commerce open borders allies of convenience discovered that with venue shopping certain court cases and a friendly leftist administration, they could exploit a massive loophole in border security and immigration policy and deliberately Cloward Pliven the immigration legal process and the border itself with utterly overwhelming numbers and create a huge exploitable second class of immigrants with a quasi legal status. Many millions to exploit for cheap labor and demographic political effects.

This bill exploited a few useful idiot Republicans and possibly some of those chamber of commerce types to try to give "bipartisan" cover to an effort to codify the asylum and enforcement loopholes permanently so they could not be legally corrected so easily.

jrdaustin said:

---

Opalka said:

---

damiond said:

---

"This was not meeting the Republicans on the 50 yard line, this was meeting them on the 10 yard line," Kelly said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," referring to the bipartisan border bill that would have imposed tough overhauls on the border, but was killed after Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to vote against it.
"On their side of the field, we realized, we've got to get operational control over the border. I realized this, Kamala Harris realizes this, and this legislation was going to do that," he added. "And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform. But this was stopped dead in its tracks by Donald Trump because he wanted to have this as an election issue. Like a lot of other Republicans, they don't actually want to solve this problem."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/sen-mark-kelly-rips-trump-role-killing-bipartisan-border-bill-rcna164443

Mark Kelly is lying. The fake Border Bill was designed to fail. It contained nearly $4 billion in funding for NGOs that are directing illegals into & throughout our country.

Biden created the border crisis through his Jan 2021 Executive Orders. He could also solve it instantly. https://t.co/l4DuNEFgdv

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) July 31, 2024

mark kelly is leftist scum that condones the lefts border invasion to destroy our country

---

Weren't republicans on the committee that helped write it? I think so. It was going to pass before Trump intervened. And voters know it.

---

That's one side of the story.

The other side is that it was a bad bill. Period. And it was never going to have support in the House, or in the full Republican caucus of the Senate. Why? It codified illegal immigration into law. At numbers that would INCREASE over time before triggering action (at the POTUS's discretion). Further, any "teeth" in the bill would be either be negated by friendly POTUS with a stroke of a pen; or, reversed under litigation in the only jurisdiction allowed by this law.... D.C.

Bottom line. The Trump angle is a convenient talking point of the Left.

As far at the "bipartisan" argument, it was not "RebublicanS. it is common knowlege that Lankford was the ONLY negotiator from the Republican side, and he was under orders by McConnell to "make a deal". Simply because this was the bone that McConnell was willing to throw in order to get his precious Ukraine funding. Cruz has stated unequivocally that McConnell did NOT have the backing of the Republican Caucus on this bill.

As has been stated - and unadressed by our friends on the left -, the true border bill was H.R.2. No one seems to want to get into why that bill failed.

ETA: Shout out to Ag with kids. I posted this before I got to his response.

---

Bolded part pretty much shows this thread can be archived.

The complete flip-flop of the dems on the issue of immigration still amazes me. The most vile statements ever made about immigrants comes from dems such as Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, etc pre-2010. They hated immigration and bashed immigrants constantly because they were beholden to the unions that viewed immigration as a threat to union jobs.

Sometime during the obama years they came up with the idea that mass illegal immigration would provide future dem voters and more power from them. I still don't know how they were able to get the unions to go along. Take care of the bosses I guess.

T-Rexican said:

---

Opposed to posting someone's opinion from Twitter, why not post what is in the bill and determine if you agree with it. No clue who that guy is, but use the facts to make an informed opinion.

[ol]

$2.334 billion, available until 2025 to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to distribute to state governments and NGOs for "refugee and entrant assistance programs", such as youth and family services, housing, medical care, and legal counseling (p. 32 of the bill). NO!

$36 million for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to fund lawyers for "certain incompetent adults" in immigration proceedings. The bill also would have authorized taxpayer-funded counsel for unaccompanied illegal alien minors, but no amount was specified for that program. (p. 62 and p 338). NOPE!

$1.4 billion from the budget for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to be transferred to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Shelter and Services Program, to be awarded to NGOs for providing shelter and other services to illegal migrants. Of this total, $933,333,333 million would be available immediately. An additional $350,000 could be spent if ICE is able to acquire detention capacity for 46,500 aliens and if DHS hires 200 CBP officers, 200 deportation officers, and 800 asylum officers. An additional $116 million could be spend if ICE conducts 1,500 removal flights and if 75 percent of Border Patrol officers are trained on asylum claims. (p. 67 and p. 82). NO SIR!

$350 million to HHS to award grants and contracts to NGOs or state and local government agencies for additional "Refugee and Entrant Assistance" services to unaccompanied minors. (p. 84). NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

$850 million to the State Department for "International Disaster Assistance", to spend on unspecified "humanitarian needs in the Western Hemisphere". Typically, much of this money is re-distributed to NGOs and contractors who apply for the funds in competitive and non-competitive programs (p. 85). Nuh Uh.

$415 million to the State Department, available until 2026, to be paid to foreign governments. Of the total, $230 million is to increase the ability of grantee countries to "accept and integrate deportees". Another $185 million is awarded to countries in the Western Hemisphere to reduce illegal migration. (p. 85). Only if the countries getting the cash actually do anything on their end.

$1.287 billion to ICE to pay contractors to administer a greatly enlarged Alternatives to Detention Program (ATD) to lightly monitor illegal migrants who have been caught and released. For more on this provision, see here. NO!

The bill would have allowed international or American NGOs, or other agencies, to become approved fingerprint collection contractors, apparently in addition to the current contractor, Amentum, which specializes in security-oriented contracts with U.S. military and intelligence agencies, among other government business. (p. 275). Nada!

[/ol]

---

ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS POST!!!!!

Let's ask a simple question. Do any of these specific provisions help to reduce the number of illegal border crossings? My answers above in bold...

So in summary, Thanks, T-Rexican, for illustrating how much money would have been spent under this bill while accomplishing little to nothing to reduce illegal immigration.

Whoo, this thread moves fast. Sorry for not keeping up, let me try to reply to a number of things.

Claverack said:

---

The "fact" deployed by you exists within your initial post when Senator Lankford admitted the law offered tools the President could either use or not use in relation to the bill.

You have a President who refused to enforce the border laws on the books and an Administration who absolutely abandoned illegal immigration law by releasing illegals into the country. All the while, they were telling us the border was secure.

Now if I am a Senator from Texas, then why would I pass a bill that doesn't give airtight guarantees the man responsible for enforcing immigration law and border security will actually do his job?

The President has wide latitude to enforce immigration law and guarantee border security. From week one of his presidency, Biden chose an open border approach. It wasn't forced on him.

The fact he chooses, based entirely on political considerations, now to use the power he has by statute and Constitutional law tells you he always had it to use.

This bill was an attempt to give legal cover to illegal immigration. Per Lankford, the enforcement mechanisms were a pipe dream under this President and any other liberal White House.

It was a good question.

Just a shame you chose to ignore the fact Biden finally admitted he had the ability to enforce the law.

---

I didn't ignore anything, I noted that Biden is taking action without the new law. But you are being too generous when you claim he always had authority under existing law. Let's review the history of events:
- Trump blocks asylum outside ports of entry
- ACLU sues, court rules Trump's action is illegal
- Biden asks Congress for explicit authority to block asylum under some conditions
- Bill with the explicit authority gets shot down
- Biden blocks asylum outside ports of entry (similar action to Trump with a few tweaks)
- ACLU plans to sue again, what are the courts going to say?
- You: See, Biden never planed to take action! Biden had the authority all along!

You can't just ignore the fact that the courts already shot down pretty much the exact thing Biden is doing right now.

The other point you misrepresent is that "the law offered tools the President could either use or not use in relation to the bill." The bill leaves some things to the discretion of the administration, but it also mandates border shutdown at 5K encounters per day. It's not optional. Those are airtight guarantees that do not exist today. You probably disagree that this is the right threshold to set for these mandatory shut downs, but you can't deny that these are new requirements.

NE PA Ag said:

---

Furthermore, a new bill needs to simply change the law on applying for asylum and nothing else, right?

---

No, I noted that asylum is only one part of our bigger immigration problem. We need more changes to address the broader system.

smucket said:

---

Pass all the bills you want. If there is no will for enforcement, no funding for enforcement that makes it to Eagle Pass, and everyone is looking the other way...bills are irrelevant

---

Yeah, I generally agree. Funding is a big reason (but not the only one) our asylum system hasn't been able to scale and process people fast enough.

Claverack said:

---

The enforcement legislation existed in a real fashion with House Resolution 2.

The fact H.R. 2 was rejected completely by the Biden demonstrates the lack of sincerity regarding border security and immigration enforcement.

---

HR 2 had plenty of nutty stuff in it like requiring family detention. Americans just don't believe this should be a part of our immigration solution and it was never going to get past the Senate.

policywonk98 said:

---

Answer this one question.

Is it legal or illegal to cross our borders without the proper paperwork?

Yes or no. It's a simple question.

---

It is legal to cross the border without paperwork and request asylum. It is against the law to punish someone for this. Charging these people with a crime is illegal. A lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of our laws and don't understand why every person crossing the border isn't immediately charged with a crime, locked up and deported.

policywonk98 said:

---

Allowing the system to be abused makes legit asylum seeking that much harder to carry out. And everyone should be on board with shaming any group that seeks to abuse the system to the detriment of legit asylum cases.

---

Yes, completely agree. But, the answer isn't to make the asylum system so cruel and painful that only the most desperate people would be willing to endure it. Our goal should be to put a system in place that is easy to understand, scalable and fast to reach decisions so that we weed out fraud. The goal should not be to create a system people are terrified of, because that will just drive more illegal immigration.

BusterAg said:

---

Max? Any response? Would love a point by point support for these provisions.

---

I'll give it my best shot...

BusterAg said:

---

Red Dane said:

---

Senator Lee Releases "Dirty Dozen" Disasters in So-Called "Border Deal"
February 5, 2024
Senator Lee Releases "Dirty Dozen" Disasters in So-Called "Border Deal"

The proposed border deal will not secure our border. Passing it into law would worsen the border crisis. Here's why:


CODIFIES CATCH AND RELEASE: Gives the Secretary of Homeland Security unchecked authority to release an alien into the United States under ineffective "alternatives to detention." The illegals only have to express "credible fear" of persecution or the intent to apply for "protection determination." (SEC. 235B). First, we have a catch and release system today where asylum applicants wait years. This bill would attempt to make the process faster and eliminate catch and release by allowing asylum officers to make determinations without going through immigration courts. It also provided funding for thousand of more asylum officers. Progressives actually hate this because it feels like we're letting cops determine cases without judicial oversight.

Second, neither a "catch and release" nor a "lock em up" approach addresses the root cause of the problem: we need to scale our asylum system to process applicants quickly. Locking up asylum seekers may be an effective way to deter people from applying and reduce the backlog. But it's a fear based strategy and it violates the law. As the shining city on the hill, we can do better.

Third, alternatives to detention work. The vast majority of asylum seekers show up for their hearings and work through the process. These people are more likely to follow the process and easier to track when they have legal representation and when they can be allowed to work in the interim.

Fourth, the bill raises the threshold for "credible fear". It may not be as strict as some would want it, but it's a compromise and should take some pressure off the system.

ALLOWS UP TO 1.8 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS TO ENTER BEFORE TEMPORARILY CLOSING PARTS OF THE BORDER: The Secretary of Homeland Security is only required to shut down the border if there are 5,000 average illegal crossings over a consecutive seven-day period or 8,500 in a single day. The Secretary may shut down the border if crossings are at 4,000 daily average over a consecutive seven-day period. Even during a border emergency, this bill requires the administration to process a minimum of 1,400 illegal immigrants a day. This is 400 more per day than Obama's DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said constituted a crisis in 2019. (SEC. 244B). Today there is no mandatory threshold requiring border shutdown. Some might want the threshold to be lower than 5K, but this is a compromise and should be considered an improvement over current state for Republicans. Also, the claim that the bill allows some number of illegal aliens in is just false. As Sen. Lankford said, "It's not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that's ridiculous...The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport."

LOOPHOLES: Does not count any unaccompanied alien children from non-contiguous countries, suspected trafficking victims, aliens who are determined "exempted" based on decisions by ICE, or aliens who meet screening criteria for asylum. Also allows the reopening of the border once encounters are at 75% of the number that caused the shut down, so if the number was 10,000 per day, it only has to be reduced to 7,500/day to reopen. If you want a require shutdown trigger, you have to set a threshold and you have to put definitions around what counts. This was a compromise that both sides could agree on. What does Mike Lee think the right number is? 100% shutdown of access for any type of migrant? He's not proposing anything that he thinks is a better compromise.

LIMITED DURATION: Limits the number of days each year where authority to shut down the border can be in place: 270 days in first calendar year, 225 days in the second year and 180 days in the third year. The period that this "border shutdown" is mandatory decreases in year one, the first 90 days are mandatory; in year two, the first 75 days are mandatory; and in year three, only the first 60 days are mandatory. I don't know that I feel too strongly about this, but probably two ways to look at this. One, I imagine this is a compromise because Dems want to prevent a future Trump admin from using this law to shutdown the border for 10 years the first time volume surges. Second, it creates a mechanism to encourage active management of the border. If we can't solve the surge in 225, Congress better get its act together to figure out another approach.

PRESIDENTIAL DISCRETION: Allows the president to reopen the border any time it is in the "national interest to temporarily suspend the border emergency authority" for up to 45 days. Can we not imagine a situation where border traffic is high and there's a national interest in not shutting it down? What if we have a natural disaster or a famine and we're trying to rush aid across the border? Somebody needs to be able to make the call on this. Where does Mike Lee want that authority to reside?

FUNDS SANCTUARY CITIES AND NGOs SENDING ILLEGALS AROUND THE COUNTRY: Includes $1.4 BILLION for more FEMA grants to NGOs that provide shelter, transportation, legal advice and other services to illegal aliens and $2.3 BILLION to HHS for Refugee Entrant And Assistance, a slush fund for services to unaccompanied alien children. A slush fund for alien children...I imagine amusement parks built out of candy. Again, asylum seekers aren't illegal and Mike Lee (like others) continue to conflate the two to stoke fears. If we're going to comply with our existing laws to allow asylum applicants, what's the alternative? Do we build prisons or concentration camps to look these people up? Do we just let them be homeless on the street, begging for food and money, probably driving up crime and being victimize? None of those approaches are going to be free. Again, the more we can do to improve the asylum process the less we'll have to fund these services.

SUBSIDIZES FREE, TAXPAYER-FUNDED LEGAL COUNSEL TO ILLEGAL ALIENS: Orders the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that "all unaccompanied alien children who are or have been in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of Homeland Security…have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings" and free legal counsel for any illegal alien who a judge determines is mentally "incompetent." Mandates that the government provide legal counsel for UACs 13 years old and under. (SEC. 3512-3513). Is this even a serious complaint? Mike Lee is pissed off that we're providing lawyers to children? Seriously, this is the type of silly, wacko stuff that makes people think Republicans aren't serious.

EXPANDS PAROLE INSTEAD OF LIMITING IT: Does nothing to meaningfully limit President Biden's abuse of parole. The language makes a fake exemption that seems to sanction Mayorkas' current abuse of parole. Under this bill, Mayorkas can parole in all these groups with the implicit approval of Congress. It also creates a dangerous EXPANSION of parole by saying it can now be granted for anyone the DHS Secretary determines has an "urgent humanitarian reason" to stay and any "culturally important purpose warranting the alien's presence in the United States on Tribal land located at or near an international land border." (SEC. 3146). Honestly don't know enough about this one and I can't seem to find a source that explains what Lee is complaining about. I did find this summary, "Humanitarian parole. This bill ends other forms of parole, including the one used now to release migrants found crossing the border illegally. It does not significantly change the president's ability to use humanitarian parole. Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans (CHNV) the parole program known as Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezeulans stays in place, with residents of those countries able to apply for entry using those spots. However, they must come through ports of entry, generally." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-in-the-senates-118-billion-border-and-ukraine-deal

INCREASES GREEN CARDS BY 50,000 PER YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS: This includes 32,000 family-based green cards and 18,000 employment-based green cards. Hurts American workers by importing cheap foreign labor. (SEC. 3402). Is this a bad thing? Beyond just shutting down the border, we need to improve legal immigration options. Today the families of highly skilled workers can't work. This would help fix that. Also, this expires after five years so we should think of it as a small experiment to improve legal immigration.

WORK PERMIT FOR ADULT CHILDREN OF H-1B VISA HOLDERS: Hurts American workers by providing indefinite work permits to an estimated 250,000 adult children of H-1B nonimmigrant visa holders who will be competing for jobs with recent college graduates. (SEC. 3403). This is addressing a real problem. Today, an H-1B visa holder could come work here and bring their child (say a 12 year old). If that child is still waiting for a green card when he turns 21, he's forced to self-deport and leave his system. This clearly isn't the way we want our system to work and people are being harmed by the inefficiencies in it. This is a small thing to improve the legal immigration options.

IMMEDIATE WORK PERMITS TO EVERY ILLEGAL RELEASED FROM CUSTODY AFTER THEY PASS AN INITIAL SCREENING: Current law requires a 6 months waiting period after filing an asylum claim before you can apply for a work permit. Under this bill, applicants are granted an IMMEDIATE work permit if they pass the initial asylum credible fear screening. (SEC. 235C). Once again, Mike Lee is referring to asylum seekers as "illegals." This is false fear mongering. Illegals are not getting work permits, asylum applicants are. This is a compromise. The bill raises the threshold on credible fear, so fewer people will get to this point. We should let people work and support themselves while waiting for their claim to be processed. What's a better approach than work permits? Prison? Let them live on the streets? Letting them work is way better than using public funds to support them. Plus, people who are registered with a work permit are going to be easier to track down if they don't show up for hearings.

NOTHING TO DEPORT ILLEGALS: Does not require the President or Secretary of Homeland Security to deport anyone. I mean...what? The bill is primarily focused on addressing the asylum process and fixing the backlog at the border. Let's fix the holes in the roof first, we'll worry about the water damage in the house later. Everyone has been upfront that more legislation is needed to address other parts of the immigration system. What does Mike Lee want is this bill? "The President is required to deport every undocumented citizen and we are allocating an unlimited budget to do so."? Let's hear this idea.

AFGHAN ADJUSTMENT ACT: Creates a pathway to citizenship for over 60,000 poorly vetted Afghans who were brought to the country due to President Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. (SEC. 331). Is this a bad thing? Afghans who supported our military were brought here as evacuees when we withdrew. This provisions says these people must now go through the same rigorous vetting process that is used for refugees. Then the have a pathway to citizen. What's the alternative?

WEAKENS ASYLUM SCREENING BY CODIFYING BIDEN POLICY: Codifies the Biden asylum officer regulation and empowers USCIS asylum officers to grant asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture without review by an Immigration Judge, ensuring significantly higher approval rates. (SEC. 3141). This one is really odd to me. Mike Lee is concerned that asylum officers will be too lenient and so we need judicial oversight. Progressives are concerned that asylum officers will be too strict and they want judicial oversight too. The intent was to make it easier/faster/cheaper to reach decisions on asylum claims. If everyone thinks that we need to invest more and be a little safer with the process, that's fine too. But you can't really have it both ways.

NO IMMEDIATE FUNDING FOR THE WALL: The bill claims to give $650 million for "building the border wall." This is a budgeting gimmick without any new money. The bill would simply rescind current money and then put it back in with a later date (FY2028) so that President Biden and Sec. Mayorkas don't have to build any wall and can delay spending money on the border wall. (SEC. 205). Shrug. This isn't really a criticism of something in the bill, Mike Lee just wants something else added. Fine, propose it in a bill. Nobody is claiming this bill give everything to everyone.
---------------------

---

---

Beyond any one provision, my biggest argument against Mike Lee's criticism is the fact that the Border Patrol endorses the bill! They recognize it's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. Politicians (Republican politicians) are the ones blocking real progress.

BusterAg said:

---

The border bill gave the DC courts the power to rule on all immigration issues.

Are you seriously saying that this bill would have resulted in more favorable court rulings? When it forced venue to DC? Is that your position?

---

Sorry, I'm not sure what part of the bill you're referencing here. Could you link me to something?

Ag with kids said:

---

Glad you were able to cut and paste from this Yahoo article...

---

I actually copied it from the NBC article. The link is in my post. Sorry you missed it. Not hiding anything. I'd prefer not to just spout off without referencing sources.

richardag said:

---

The lie was that it would not stop the illegal invasion, it codified it into law. It also did not count many of the illegal aliens brought into this country in the 4,000 daily maximums. It also provided exceptions to enforcement allowing those protections against the invasion to be waived.

---

Are you talking about the exceptions to the daily limit that Mike Lee complained about? Those are people like trafficking victims, asylum applicants and unaccompanied minors. I don't really have a problem with counting them differently than people sneaking across with no intention of seeking asylum. And, again, we have no limit today so this is at least a step in a different direction.

richardag said:

---

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

why did we even need a new bill? Under trump, border security. Under biden, no border security.

Not passing a bill didn't change this. It was working before this proposed bill. It's not working anymore under Biden/Harris.

---

This above all else proves the bill was not only not needed but a complete lie.

---

Really, no, you're misinformed here. Trump's policies were effective at reducing immigration, but the policies also violated the law. They were illegal. The court's blocked many of them and Biden removed many, which he was right to do. We are legally obligated to accept asylum seekers. We are legally obligated to not punish asylum seekers regardless of how they enter the country. Trump's policies flaunted the law, but they didn't change the law. We should not sacrifice our laws or our ethics simply because doing so would be more expedient.

jrdaustin said:

---

That's one side of the story.

The other side is that it was a bad bill. Period. And it was never going to have support in the House, or in the full Republican caucus of the Senate. Why? It codified illegal immigration into law. At numbers that would INCREASE over time before triggering action (at the POTUS's discretion). Further, any "teeth" in the bill would be either be negated by friendly POTUS with a stroke of a pen; or, reversed under litigation in the only jurisdiction allowed by this law.... D.C.

Bottom line. The Trump angle is a convenient talking point of the Left.

---

You need to go look at what's actually in the bill. It doesn't codify illegal immigration. What provision are you even talking about? On the Trump thing, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and others are on record stating that the bill died because Trump opposed it. You can't blame the talking points on the Left when they're coming from your own party.

Max Boredom said:

---

You need to go look at what's actually in the bill. It doesn't codify illegal immigration. What provision are you even talking about? On the Trump thing, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and others are on record stating that the bill died because Trump opposed it. You can't blame the talking points on the Left when they're coming from your own party.

---

We did, and so did the Heritage Foundation, Replulican Senators, and countless others. Take the L

samurai_science said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

You need to go look at what's actually in the bill. It doesn't codify illegal immigration. What provision are you even talking about? On the Trump thing, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and others are on record stating that the bill died because Trump opposed it. You can't blame the talking points on the Left when they're coming from your own party.

---

We did, and so did the Heritage Foundation, Replulican Senators, and countless others. Take the L

---

When you don't have any facts to back you up, just flood the zone, spike the ball and claim a win. Trump has taught you well.

As entertaining as it may be to look at what the weirdos at the Heritage Foundation think about this, I'm going to pay attention to the Border Patrol who endorsed the bill and accurately see it as an imperfect step in the right direction.

You might want to claim a win, but what have you won? Our immigration system is still a mess and the asylum backlog is growing. On top of that, Trump is getting the blame for blocking any compromise. This is the most hollow of moral victories.

And still, I haven't seen you or anyone else who has denounced the bill offer up any better compromise that satisfies the very reasonable expectations shared by most Americans, namely:

• We honor our treaties, laws and international commits by accepting asylum requests
• We don't anchor our system on fear and suffering by locking people up unnecessarily (especially children!), forcing them into dangerous situations or leaving them to beg on the streets
• We try to make the system work for people who are trying to come here legally

That's it. It's a pretty low bar.

Max Boredom said:

---

Whoo, this thread moves fast. Sorry for not keeping up, let me try to reply to a number of things.

Claverack said:

---

The "fact" deployed by you exists within your initial post when Senator Lankford admitted the law offered tools the President could either use or not use in relation to the bill.

You have a President who refused to enforce the border laws on the books and an Administration who absolutely abandoned illegal immigration law by releasing illegals into the country. All the while, they were telling us the border was secure.

Now if I am a Senator from Texas, then why would I pass a bill that doesn't give airtight guarantees the man responsible for enforcing immigration law and border security will actually do his job?

The President has wide latitude to enforce immigration law and guarantee border security. From week one of his presidency, Biden chose an open border approach. It wasn't forced on him.

The fact he chooses, based entirely on political considerations, now to use the power he has by statute and Constitutional law tells you he always had it to use.

This bill was an attempt to give legal cover to illegal immigration. Per Lankford, the enforcement mechanisms were a pipe dream under this President and any other liberal White House.

It was a good question.

Just a shame you chose to ignore the fact Biden finally admitted he had the ability to enforce the law.

---

I didn't ignore anything, I noted that Biden is taking action without the new law. But you are being too generous when you claim he always had authority under existing law. Let's review the history of events:
- Trump blocks asylum outside ports of entry
- ACLU sues, court rules Trump's action is illegal
- Biden asks Congress for explicit authority to block asylum under some conditions
- Bill with the explicit authority gets shot down
- Biden blocks asylum outside ports of entry (similar action to Trump with a few tweaks)
- ACLU plans to sue again, what are the courts going to say?
- You: See, Biden never planed to take action! Biden had the authority all along!

You can't just ignore the fact that the courts already shot down pretty much the exact thing Biden is doing right now.

The other point you misrepresent is that "the law offered tools the President could either use or not use in relation to the bill." The bill leaves some things to the discretion of the administration, but it also mandates border shutdown at 5K encounters per day. It's not optional. Those are airtight guarantees that do not exist today. You probably disagree that this is the right threshold to set for these mandatory shut downs, but you can't deny that these are new requirements.

NE PA Ag said:

---

Furthermore, a new bill needs to simply change the law on applying for asylum and nothing else, right?

---

No, I noted that asylum is only one part of our bigger immigration problem. We need more changes to address the broader system.

smucket said:

---

Pass all the bills you want. If there is no will for enforcement, no funding for enforcement that makes it to Eagle Pass, and everyone is looking the other way...bills are irrelevant

---

Yeah, I generally agree. Funding is a big reason (but not the only one) our asylum system hasn't been able to scale and process people fast enough.

Claverack said:

---

The enforcement legislation existed in a real fashion with House Resolution 2.

The fact H.R. 2 was rejected completely by the Biden demonstrates the lack of sincerity regarding border security and immigration enforcement.

---

HR 2 had plenty of nutty stuff in it like requiring family detention. Americans just don't believe this should be a part of our immigration solution and it was never going to get past the Senate.

policywonk98 said:

---

Answer this one question.

Is it legal or illegal to cross our borders without the proper paperwork?

Yes or no. It's a simple question.

---

It is legal to cross the border without paperwork and request asylum. It is against the law to punish someone for this. Charging these people with a crime is illegal. A lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of our laws and don't understand why every person crossing the border isn't immediately charged with a crime, locked up and deported.

policywonk98 said:

---

Allowing the system to be abused makes legit asylum seeking that much harder to carry out. And everyone should be on board with shaming any group that seeks to abuse the system to the detriment of legit asylum cases.

---

Yes, completely agree. But, the answer isn't to make the asylum system so cruel and painful that only the most desperate people would be willing to endure it. Our goal should be to put a system in place that is easy to understand, scalable and fast to reach decisions so that we weed out fraud. The goal should not be to create a system people are terrified of, because that will just drive more illegal immigration.

BusterAg said:

---

Max? Any response? Would love a point by point support for these provisions.

---

I'll give it my best shot...

BusterAg said:

---

Red Dane said:

---

Senator Lee Releases "Dirty Dozen" Disasters in So-Called "Border Deal"
February 5, 2024
Senator Lee Releases "Dirty Dozen" Disasters in So-Called "Border Deal"

The proposed border deal will not secure our border. Passing it into law would worsen the border crisis. Here's why:


CODIFIES CATCH AND RELEASE: Gives the Secretary of Homeland Security unchecked authority to release an alien into the United States under ineffective "alternatives to detention." The illegals only have to express "credible fear" of persecution or the intent to apply for "protection determination." (SEC. 235B). First, we have a catch and release system today where asylum applicants wait years. This bill would attempt to make the process faster and eliminate catch and release by allowing asylum officers to make determinations without going through immigration courts. It also provided funding for thousand of more asylum officers. Progressives actually hate this because it feels like we're letting cops determine cases without judicial oversight.

Second, neither a "catch and release" nor a "lock em up" approach addresses the root cause of the problem: we need to scale our asylum system to process applicants quickly. Locking up asylum seekers may be an effective way to deter people from applying and reduce the backlog. But it's a fear based strategy and it violates the law. As the shining city on the hill, we can do better.

Third, alternatives to detention work. The vast majority of asylum seekers show up for their hearings and work through the process. These people are more likely to follow the process and easier to track when they have legal representation and when they can be allowed to work in the interim.

Fourth, the bill raises the threshold for "credible fear". It may not be as strict as some would want it, but it's a compromise and should take some pressure off the system.

ALLOWS UP TO 1.8 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS TO ENTER BEFORE TEMPORARILY CLOSING PARTS OF THE BORDER: The Secretary of Homeland Security is only required to shut down the border if there are 5,000 average illegal crossings over a consecutive seven-day period or 8,500 in a single day. The Secretary may shut down the border if crossings are at 4,000 daily average over a consecutive seven-day period. Even during a border emergency, this bill requires the administration to process a minimum of 1,400 illegal immigrants a day. This is 400 more per day than Obama's DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said constituted a crisis in 2019. (SEC. 244B). Today there is no mandatory threshold requiring border shutdown. Some might want the threshold to be lower than 5K, but this is a compromise and should be considered an improvement over current state for Republicans. Also, the claim that the bill allows some number of illegal aliens in is just false. As Sen. Lankford said, "It's not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that's ridiculous...The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport."

LOOPHOLES: Does not count any unaccompanied alien children from non-contiguous countries, suspected trafficking victims, aliens who are determined "exempted" based on decisions by ICE, or aliens who meet screening criteria for asylum. Also allows the reopening of the border once encounters are at 75% of the number that caused the shut down, so if the number was 10,000 per day, it only has to be reduced to 7,500/day to reopen. If you want a require shutdown trigger, you have to set a threshold and you have to put definitions around what counts. This was a compromise that both sides could agree on. What does Mike Lee think the right number is? 100% shutdown of access for any type of migrant? He's not proposing anything that he thinks is a better compromise.

LIMITED DURATION: Limits the number of days each year where authority to shut down the border can be in place: 270 days in first calendar year, 225 days in the second year and 180 days in the third year. The period that this "border shutdown" is mandatory decreases in year one, the first 90 days are mandatory; in year two, the first 75 days are mandatory; and in year three, only the first 60 days are mandatory. I don't know that I feel too strongly about this, but probably two ways to look at this. One, I imagine this is a compromise because Dems want to prevent a future Trump admin from using this law to shutdown the border for 10 years the first time volume surges. Second, it creates a mechanism to encourage active management of the border. If we can't solve the surge in 225, Congress better get its act together to figure out another approach.

PRESIDENTIAL DISCRETION: Allows the president to reopen the border any time it is in the "national interest to temporarily suspend the border emergency authority" for up to 45 days. Can we not imagine a situation where border traffic is high and there's a national interest in not shutting it down? What if we have a natural disaster or a famine and we're trying to rush aid across the border? Somebody needs to be able to make the call on this. Where does Mike Lee want that authority to reside?

FUNDS SANCTUARY CITIES AND NGOs SENDING ILLEGALS AROUND THE COUNTRY: Includes $1.4 BILLION for more FEMA grants to NGOs that provide shelter, transportation, legal advice and other services to illegal aliens and $2.3 BILLION to HHS for Refugee Entrant And Assistance, a slush fund for services to unaccompanied alien children. A slush fund for alien children...I imagine amusement parks built out of candy. Again, asylum seekers aren't illegal and Mike Lee (like others) continue to conflate the two to stoke fears. If we're going to comply with our existing laws to allow asylum applicants, what's the alternative? Do we build prisons or concentration camps to look these people up? Do we just let them be homeless on the street, begging for food and money, probably driving up crime and being victimize? None of those approaches are going to be free. Again, the more we can do to improve the asylum process the less we'll have to fund these services.

SUBSIDIZES FREE, TAXPAYER-FUNDED LEGAL COUNSEL TO ILLEGAL ALIENS: Orders the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that "all unaccompanied alien children who are or have been in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of Homeland Security…have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings" and free legal counsel for any illegal alien who a judge determines is mentally "incompetent." Mandates that the government provide legal counsel for UACs 13 years old and under. (SEC. 3512-3513). Is this even a serious complaint? Mike Lee is pissed off that we're providing lawyers to children? Seriously, this is the type of silly, wacko stuff that makes people think Republicans aren't serious.

EXPANDS PAROLE INSTEAD OF LIMITING IT: Does nothing to meaningfully limit President Biden's abuse of parole. The language makes a fake exemption that seems to sanction Mayorkas' current abuse of parole. Under this bill, Mayorkas can parole in all these groups with the implicit approval of Congress. It also creates a dangerous EXPANSION of parole by saying it can now be granted for anyone the DHS Secretary determines has an "urgent humanitarian reason" to stay and any "culturally important purpose warranting the alien's presence in the United States on Tribal land located at or near an international land border." (SEC. 3146). Honestly don't know enough about this one and I can't seem to find a source that explains what Lee is complaining about. I did find this summary, "Humanitarian parole. This bill ends other forms of parole, including the one used now to release migrants found crossing the border illegally. It does not significantly change the president's ability to use humanitarian parole. Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans (CHNV) the parole program known as Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezeulans stays in place, with residents of those countries able to apply for entry using those spots. However, they must come through ports of entry, generally." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-in-the-senates-118-billion-border-and-ukraine-deal

INCREASES GREEN CARDS BY 50,000 PER YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS: This includes 32,000 family-based green cards and 18,000 employment-based green cards. Hurts American workers by importing cheap foreign labor. (SEC. 3402). Is this a bad thing? Beyond just shutting down the border, we need to improve legal immigration options. Today the families of highly skilled workers can't work. This would help fix that. Also, this expires after five years so we should think of it as a small experiment to improve legal immigration.

WORK PERMIT FOR ADULT CHILDREN OF H-1B VISA HOLDERS: Hurts American workers by providing indefinite work permits to an estimated 250,000 adult children of H-1B nonimmigrant visa holders who will be competing for jobs with recent college graduates. (SEC. 3403). This is addressing a real problem. Today, an H-1B visa holder could come work here and bring their child (say a 12 year old). If that child is still waiting for a green card when he turns 21, he's forced to self-deport and leave his system. This clearly isn't the way we want our system to work and people are being harmed by the inefficiencies in it. This is a small thing to improve the legal immigration options.

IMMEDIATE WORK PERMITS TO EVERY ILLEGAL RELEASED FROM CUSTODY AFTER THEY PASS AN INITIAL SCREENING: Current law requires a 6 months waiting period after filing an asylum claim before you can apply for a work permit. Under this bill, applicants are granted an IMMEDIATE work permit if they pass the initial asylum credible fear screening. (SEC. 235C). Once again, Mike Lee is referring to asylum seekers as "illegals." This is false fear mongering. Illegals are not getting work permits, asylum applicants are. This is a compromise. The bill raises the threshold on credible fear, so fewer people will get to this point. We should let people work and support themselves while waiting for their claim to be processed. What's a better approach than work permits? Prison? Let them live on the streets? Letting them work is way better than using public funds to support them. Plus, people who are registered with a work permit are going to be easier to track down if they don't show up for hearings.

NOTHING TO DEPORT ILLEGALS: Does not require the President or Secretary of Homeland Security to deport anyone. I mean...what? The bill is primarily focused on addressing the asylum process and fixing the backlog at the border. Let's fix the holes in the roof first, we'll worry about the water damage in the house later. Everyone has been upfront that more legislation is needed to address other parts of the immigration system. What does Mike Lee want is this bill? "The President is required to deport every undocumented citizen and we are allocating an unlimited budget to do so."? Let's hear this idea.

AFGHAN ADJUSTMENT ACT: Creates a pathway to citizenship for over 60,000 poorly vetted Afghans who were brought to the country due to President Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. (SEC. 331). Is this a bad thing? Afghans who supported our military were brought here as evacuees when we withdrew. This provisions says these people must now go through the same rigorous vetting process that is used for refugees. Then the have a pathway to citizen. What's the alternative?

WEAKENS ASYLUM SCREENING BY CODIFYING BIDEN POLICY: Codifies the Biden asylum officer regulation and empowers USCIS asylum officers to grant asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture without review by an Immigration Judge, ensuring significantly higher approval rates. (SEC. 3141). This one is really odd to me. Mike Lee is concerned that asylum officers will be too lenient and so we need judicial oversight. Progressives are concerned that asylum officers will be too strict and they want judicial oversight too. The intent was to make it easier/faster/cheaper to reach decisions on asylum claims. If everyone thinks that we need to invest more and be a little safer with the process, that's fine too. But you can't really have it both ways.

NO IMMEDIATE FUNDING FOR THE WALL: The bill claims to give $650 million for "building the border wall." This is a budgeting gimmick without any new money. The bill would simply rescind current money and then put it back in with a later date (FY2028) so that President Biden and Sec. Mayorkas don't have to build any wall and can delay spending money on the border wall. (SEC. 205). Shrug. This isn't really a criticism of something in the bill, Mike Lee just wants something else added. Fine, propose it in a bill. Nobody is claiming this bill give everything to everyone.
---------------------

---

---

Beyond any one provision, my biggest argument against Mike Lee's criticism is the fact that the Border Patrol endorses the bill! They recognize it's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. Politicians (Republican politicians) are the ones blocking real progress.

BusterAg said:

---

The border bill gave the DC courts the power to rule on all immigration issues.

Are you seriously saying that this bill would have resulted in more favorable court rulings? When it forced venue to DC? Is that your position?

---

Sorry, I'm not sure what part of the bill you're referencing here. Could you link me to something?

Ag with kids said:

---

Glad you were able to cut and paste from this Yahoo article...

---

I actually copied it from the NBC article. The link is in my post. Sorry you missed it. Not hiding anything. I'd prefer not to just spout off without referencing sources.

richardag said:

---

The lie was that it would not stop the illegal invasion, it codified it into law. It also did not count many of the illegal aliens brought into this country in the 4,000 daily maximums. It also provided exceptions to enforcement allowing those protections against the invasion to be waived.

---

Are you talking about the exceptions to the daily limit that Mike Lee complained about? Those are people like trafficking victims, asylum applicants and unaccompanied minors. I don't really have a problem with counting them differently than people sneaking across with no intention of seeking asylum. And, again, we have no limit today so this is at least a step in a different direction.

richardag said:

---

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

why did we even need a new bill? Under trump, border security. Under biden, no border security.

Not passing a bill didn't change this. It was working before this proposed bill. It's not working anymore under Biden/Harris.

---

This above all else proves the bill was not only not needed but a complete lie.

---

Really, no, you're misinformed here. Trump's policies were effective at reducing immigration, but the policies also violated the law. They were illegal. The court's blocked many of them and Biden removed many, which he was right to do. We are legally obligated to accept asylum seekers. We are legally obligated to not punish asylum seekers regardless of how they enter the country. Trump's policies flaunted the law, but they didn't change the law. We should not sacrifice our laws or our ethics simply because doing so would be more expedient.

jrdaustin said:

---

That's one side of the story.

The other side is that it was a bad bill. Period. And it was never going to have support in the House, or in the full Republican caucus of the Senate. Why? It codified illegal immigration into law. At numbers that would INCREASE over time before triggering action (at the POTUS's discretion). Further, any "teeth" in the bill would be either be negated by friendly POTUS with a stroke of a pen; or, reversed under litigation in the only jurisdiction allowed by this law.... D.C.

Bottom line. The Trump angle is a convenient talking point of the Left.

---

You need to go look at what's actually in the bill. It doesn't codify illegal immigration. What provision are you even talking about? On the Trump thing, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and others are on record stating that the bill died because Trump opposed it. You can't blame the talking points on the Left when they're coming from your own party.

---

Numerous conservative Senators had already come out against it well before Trump opened his mouth about it. Here's a Jan 24 article of them saying it was already DOA.


Now, here is the FIRST TIME Trump mentions the bill - on Feb 5.

That bill was DEAD LONG before Trump said anything. It's nothing more than left wing propaganda to repeat that it was Trump's fault.

Too many people have gulped down the pravda approved narrative about Trump strong arming or bullying that bill away. Republican legislators had already gotten wind that the bill was going to sign into law the continuation of over a million migrant asylum claimants per year to waltz on in here unfettered through our ports of entry before Donald Trump ever "Truthed" anything about it being a terrible deal. No one cares if Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell or Dan Crenshaw were still in favor of that crap bill or how much they want to blame it not passing on Trump saying it was a terrible deal. It didn't pass and it didn't not pass just because Trump ordered it not to be passed. It didn't pass because it was terrible and enough republicans figured it out in time.

Biden ran a campaign on "path to amnesty" and not building a wall and vilifying his predecessor for "kids in cages". It was clearly an intentional invitation to the world to waltz on in here and over 10 million from over 180 different countries took him up on it. He signed executive orders from day 1 of his presidency to intentionally make it happen. They redefined what asylum means and changed how they handle asylum claims via executive fiat intentionally and obviously. A bill 3 years into the regime's reign wasn't needed and can't be used as the blame for it after the fact.

If you want an argument to keep running cover for Biden or the "bipartisan" **** bill, maybe you can argue that over 81 million Americans voted for Biden so "we the people" actually want an open border. That's your only argument.

Ag with kids said:

---

Numerous conservative Senators had already come out against it well before Trump opened his mouth about it. Here's a Jan 24 article of them saying it was already DOA.


Now, here is the FIRST TIME Trump mentions the bill - on Feb 5.

That bill was DEAD LONG before Trump said anything. It's nothing more than left wing propaganda to repeat that it was Trump's fault.

---

<Sleepy Joe>C'mon, man.</Sleepy Joe>. You can quote Truth Social, but (and this may come as a shock) I'm pretty sure Trump talks to people outside of the internet and I'm pretty sure he doesn't read you in on every conversation he has. If you want to play with dates, let's go back to January when Republicans complained that Trump had been pressuring people behind the scenes for weeks to block the bill. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senators-angry-trump-immigration-deal/index.html

Quote:

---

"This proposal would have had almost unanimous Republican support if it weren't for Donald Trump," the Republican senator said.

---

But let's give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume they just disagreed with the bill and it had nothing to do with Trump. What would they change in the bill? I responded to every point of criticism above from Mike Lee. What's the alternative? Where would the Republicans have made the compromise? If they were serious about this they would have brought something to the table that would be palatable to both parties.

Opalka said:

---

damiond said:

---

"This was not meeting the Republicans on the 50 yard line, this was meeting them on the 10 yard line," Kelly said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," referring to the bipartisan border bill that would have imposed tough overhauls on the border, but was killed after Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to vote against it.
"On their side of the field, we realized, we've got to get operational control over the border. I realized this, Kamala Harris realizes this, and this legislation was going to do that," he added. "And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform. But this was stopped dead in its tracks by Donald Trump because he wanted to have this as an election issue. Like a lot of other Republicans, they don't actually want to solve this problem."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/sen-mark-kelly-rips-trump-role-killing-bipartisan-border-bill-rcna164443

Mark Kelly is lying. The fake Border Bill was designed to fail. It contained nearly $4 billion in funding for NGOs that are directing illegals into & throughout our country.

Biden created the border crisis through his Jan 2021 Executive Orders. He could also solve it instantly. https://t.co/l4DuNEFgdv

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) July 31, 2024

mark kelly is leftist scum that condones the lefts border invasion to destroy our country

---

Weren't republicans on the committee that helped write it? I think so. It was going to pass before Trump intervened. And voters know it.

---

Do you think that the bill was a good thing? That is the pertinent question.

If you think the bill was good law, how do you address the bad parts of the bill, like limiting the number of days you can close the border, or giving money to coyotes?

Opalka said:

---

damiond said:

---

"This was not meeting the Republicans on the 50 yard line, this was meeting them on the 10 yard line," Kelly said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," referring to the bipartisan border bill that would have imposed tough overhauls on the border, but was killed after Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to vote against it.
"On their side of the field, we realized, we've got to get operational control over the border. I realized this, Kamala Harris realizes this, and this legislation was going to do that," he added. "And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform. But this was stopped dead in its tracks by Donald Trump because he wanted to have this as an election issue. Like a lot of other Republicans, they don't actually want to solve this problem."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/sen-mark-kelly-rips-trump-role-killing-bipartisan-border-bill-rcna164443

Mark Kelly is lying. The fake Border Bill was designed to fail. It contained nearly $4 billion in funding for NGOs that are directing illegals into & throughout our country.

Biden created the border crisis through his Jan 2021 Executive Orders. He could also solve it instantly. https://t.co/l4DuNEFgdv

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) July 31, 2024

mark kelly is leftist scum that condones the lefts border invasion to destroy our country

---

Weren't republicans on the committee that helped write it? I think so. It was going to pass before Trump intervened. And voters know it.

---

Good i hope we get more illegals.
Need to send them to the blue states and blue cities, where they can get sanctuary

is Max Boredom the reincarnation of John Maplethorpe? The gaslighting is off the charts with this guy, just like with Maplethorpe.

Logos Stick said:

---

is Max Boredom the reincarnation of John Maplethorpe? The gaslighting is off the charts with this guy, just like with Maplethorpe.

---

Yes, he's a full on Marxist.

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Numerous conservative Senators had already come out against it well before Trump opened his mouth about it. Here's a Jan 24 article of them saying it was already DOA.


Now, here is the FIRST TIME Trump mentions the bill - on Feb 5.

That bill was DEAD LONG before Trump said anything. It's nothing more than left wing propaganda to repeat that it was Trump's fault.

---

<Sleepy Joe>C'mon, man.</Sleepy Joe>. You can quote Truth Social, but (and this may come as a shock) I'm pretty sure Trump talks to people outside of the internet and I'm pretty sure he doesn't read you in on every conversation he has. If you want to play with dates, let's go back to January when Republicans complained that Trump had been pressuring people behind the scenes for weeks to block the bill. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senators-angry-trump-immigration-deal/index.html

Quote:

---

"This proposal would have had almost unanimous Republican support if it weren't for Donald Trump," the Republican senator said.

---

But let's give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume they just disagreed with the bill and it had nothing to do with Trump. What would they change in the bill? I responded to every point of criticism above from Mike Lee. What's the alternative? Where would the Republicans have made the compromise? If they were serious about this they would have brought something to the table that would be palatable to both parties.

---

How about this.
Shoot everyone who tries to cross the border without paperwork and doesn't go through a legal port of entry.
That's what they do everywhere outside of Europe and the US/Canada.

Problem solved. You want to come to America, get a VISA like everybody else.

Quote:

---

- ACLU sues, court rules Trump's action is illegal

---

You mean the DC district court ruled it is illegal? An Obama appointee! Well no **** Sherlock!

Max Boredom said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Quote:

---

Here's what GOP leadership said about it at the time:

Lankford, the chief GOP negotiator, touted the asylum and immigration changes in the legislation.

"The border security bill will put a huge number of new enforcement tools in the hands of a future administration and push the current Administration to finally stop the illegal flow," he said in a statement. "The bill provides funding to build the wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. The border security bill ends the abuse of parole on our southwest border that has waived in over a million people. It dramatically changes our ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation."

---

All of that required approval of the President before it could proceed.

What makes you think Biden would have given approval?

Notice what Lankford said regarding his negotiated bill. The bill gives enforcement tools to a future GOP Administration.

If those enforcement tools could only come from approval of a President, then Lankford full well knew they would be blocked in the same manner by Oldfinger.

Dead on arrival because it did nothing but guarantee a steady flow of illegal aliens while delaying any chance of real enforcement on the border.

---

A couple other folks also mentioned that Dems wouldn't have enforced the law. I'm going to respond to you here because you're making a more thoughtful case than most, which I appreciate, so thank you.

The gist of the argument is, "We didn't pass the bill because the Dems wouldn't have enforced it anyway. Any Dem who says they would have enforced it is a stupid, commie liar." That is weak sauce for two reasons.

First, even if that was a real concern, you still pass the bill, call the Dems out if they don't take action and then you at least have the legislation in place the next time a Republican administration is in power. You still dare the Dems to decline action even if you think they aren't sincere. Seriously, this is the only reasonable thing to do.

Second, after the bill got shot down, Biden did take executive action to reduce asylum claims while illegal crossings were up. But, it would have been preferable to have the legislation in place to more explicitly authorize the action. This is what makes me think he would have given approval to act. Since he finally took action without the legislation, it's disingenuous to say he wouldn't have taken action with the bill in place.

You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to think either of these lines of reasoning hold any water. The only folks who sound more silly are the ones in west Austin who can't muster an argument beyond, "hur dur, you dummy with your facts and logic."

---

You continue to want to get in with the pigs and wallow around while ignoring the plain truth (already stated on here) that the Trump Admin had been able to control the border. It is still controllable by the simple expedient of sending every single illegal immigrant back.

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Numerous conservative Senators had already come out against it well before Trump opened his mouth about it. Here's a Jan 24 article of them saying it was already DOA.


Now, here is the FIRST TIME Trump mentions the bill - on Feb 5.

That bill was DEAD LONG before Trump said anything. It's nothing more than left wing propaganda to repeat that it was Trump's fault.

---

<Sleepy Joe>C'mon, man.</Sleepy Joe>. You can quote Truth Social, but (and this may come as a shock) I'm pretty sure Trump talks to people outside of the internet and I'm pretty sure he doesn't read you in on every conversation he has. If you want to play with dates, let's go back to January when Republicans complained that Trump had been pressuring people behind the scenes for weeks to block the bill. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senators-angry-trump-immigration-deal/index.html

Quote:

---

"This proposal would have had almost unanimous Republican support if it weren't for Donald Trump," the Republican senator said.

---

But let's give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume they just disagreed with the bill and it had nothing to do with Trump. What would they change in the bill? I responded to every point of criticism above from Mike Lee. What's the alternative? Where would the Republicans have made the compromise? If they were serious about this they would have brought something to the table that would be palatable to both parties.

---

It's quite telling that many liberal Democrat Senators LOVED the bill and the conservative Republicans HATED it. But, you're going to tell us it was a good bill? I guess if you're a Democrat is was.

What would change in the bill? For starters, everything Mike Lee stated. Just because you "responded" to every point of criticism doesn't mean you're correct. Your responses were perfect if your goal is to allow lots of people into the country.

The 5000 number, for instance, was a solid poison pill put in by the Democrats. (Yes, it would codify 1.8 million entries a year). You're claiming Trump and Republicans played politics, well, the Democrats played it quite well there...

BusterAg said:

---

Opalka said:

---

damiond said:

---

"This was not meeting the Republicans on the 50 yard line, this was meeting them on the 10 yard line," Kelly said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," referring to the bipartisan border bill that would have imposed tough overhauls on the border, but was killed after Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to vote against it.
"On their side of the field, we realized, we've got to get operational control over the border. I realized this, Kamala Harris realizes this, and this legislation was going to do that," he added. "And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform. But this was stopped dead in its tracks by Donald Trump because he wanted to have this as an election issue. Like a lot of other Republicans, they don't actually want to solve this problem."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/sen-mark-kelly-rips-trump-role-killing-bipartisan-border-bill-rcna164443

Mark Kelly is lying. The fake Border Bill was designed to fail. It contained nearly $4 billion in funding for NGOs that are directing illegals into & throughout our country.

Biden created the border crisis through his Jan 2021 Executive Orders. He could also solve it instantly. https://t.co/l4DuNEFgdv

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) July 31, 2024

mark kelly is leftist scum that condones the lefts border invasion to destroy our country

---

Weren't republicans on the committee that helped write it? I think so. It was going to pass before Trump intervened. And voters know it.

---

Do you think that the bill was a good thing? That is the pertinent question.

If you think the bill was good law, how do you address the bad parts of the bill, like limiting the number of days you can close the border, or giving money to coyotes?

---

I think the bill was a step in the right direction, which is the same thing the Border Patrol said in their endorsement. That carries a lot of weight.

It's worth noting that most people, including Republicans, support a lot of the provisions in the bill. Things like hiring more asylum officers and border patrol agents just need to happen.


It's also clear that Trump's opinion has a huge impact on how people view the bill.

Deeper dive article

As to the bad parts, you'd have to specify which parts you'd want to change. Looking at those polls, there's plenty of stuff in there that's way less popular with Democrats than with Republicans.

Limiting the number of days you can close the border? I'll go back to what I said on the Mike Lee comments:

Quote:

---

LIMITED DURATION: Limits the number of days each year where authority to shut down the border can be in place: 270 days in first calendar year, 225 days in the second year and 180 days in the third year. The period that this "border shutdown" is mandatory decreases in year one, the first 90 days are mandatory; in year two, the first 75 days are mandatory; and in year three, only the first 60 days are mandatory. I don't know that I feel too strongly about this, but probably two ways to look at this. One, I imagine this is a compromise because Dems want to prevent a future Trump admin from using this law to shutdown the border for 10 years the first time volume surges. Second, it creates a mechanism to encourage active management of the border. If we can't solve the surge in 225, Congress better get its act together to figure out another approach.

---

Giving money to coyotes? Haven't seen that anywhere and it didn't make Mike Lee's "dirty dozen" list of complaints, so pretty sure this is a myth.

Max Boredom said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform.

---

Yeah, right. If this bill had passed, the Democrats would have said, "We've fixed the border so we don't need to do anything more." He's also contradicting himself when he says that they didn't meet at the 50 yard line, but at the 10 yard line. If the bill was so skewed toward enforcement, what would have been left for the "comprehensive immigration reform?"

---

What part of Mark Kelly's comment do people think was a lie? Here's a list of some things in the bill.

• New emergency authority that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to "shut down" the border if there are too many migrants trying to cross.
• Any migrant who tried to cross illegally two or more times during a border emergency would be barred from the U.S. for a year.
• The bill would also end the practice of "catch and release." If passed into law, the bill would allow migrants who come to the border through lawful ports of entry and families to enter the U.S. under federal supervision for 90 days while they complete asylum interviews. Those who pass would receive work permits as they await adjudication of their claims. Those who fail would be removed from the U.S. and repatriated to their home countries or to Mexico.
• The bill would mandate detaining migrants who try to enter the U.S. outside of official ports of entry, pending any asylum claims. Those who fail would also be removed.
• The bill allocates funding for repatriation flights up to 77 per day.
• The bill also raises the "credible fear" standard during interviews for asylum claims, largely by front-loading consideration of whether migrants have disqualifying criminal histories, whether they lived safely in third countries before trying to cross into the U.S. and whether they could safely relocate within their own countries.
• The bill would add new flexibility for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol to make new hires, seeking to address staffing shortages.
• The package also includes bipartisan sweeteners, including the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, which would target, sanction and block the financial assets of people involved in the fentanyl supply chain, from chemical suppliers in China to drug traffickers from Mexico.

Here's what GOP leadership said about it at the time:

Quote:

---

Lankford, the chief GOP negotiator, touted the asylum and immigration changes in the legislation.

"The border security bill will put a huge number of new enforcement tools in the hands of a future administration and push the current Administration to finally stop the illegal flow," he said in a statement. "The bill provides funding to build the wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. The border security bill ends the abuse of parole on our southwest border that has waived in over a million people. It dramatically changes our ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., praised the bill for providing "direct and immediate solutions to the crisis at our southern border." He added that America's sovereignty "is being tested here at home" and that adversaries are watching.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-asylum-reform-bill-released-senate-text-rcna136602


To answer your question on "what's left", this bill was focused on securing the border but it didn't address other problems with our immigration policy/system. These are a few of the things that still need to be solved with immigration reform.

• It didn't provide a solution for DREAMERS
• It didn't do anything to crack down on employers hiring illegal immigrants
• It didn't do anything to address our dependence on immigrant labor through a work visa program or some other solution

There's a lot more to it: https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-system-broken-short-list-problems

---

Horse$#&%. Ask any CBP agent how they feel about this bill and processing 34,999 "legal" crossings a week combined with trying to keep the others out. I'll do the math for you - that's potentially another 1.8 million new "asylum seekers" per year on top of the millions backlogged now and the million legal applicants we let in now. Just because you can walk across the border does not make you special. It also takes close to 2 years from application to field for new CBP agents.

Get your border illiterate nonsense out of here and favor a bill that shuts it down to what it ought to be - a trickle that CBP can handle and instantaneously send back to remain in Mexico, or wherever home is, waiting their turn.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Quote:

---

Here's what GOP leadership said about it at the time:

Lankford, the chief GOP negotiator, touted the asylum and immigration changes in the legislation.

"The border security bill will put a huge number of new enforcement tools in the hands of a future administration and push the current Administration to finally stop the illegal flow," he said in a statement. "The bill provides funding to build the wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. The border security bill ends the abuse of parole on our southwest border that has waived in over a million people. It dramatically changes our ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation."

---

All of that required approval of the President before it could proceed.

What makes you think Biden would have given approval?

Notice what Lankford said regarding his negotiated bill. The bill gives enforcement tools to a future GOP Administration.

If those enforcement tools could only come from approval of a President, then Lankford full well knew they would be blocked in the same manner by Oldfinger.

Dead on arrival because it did nothing but guarantee a steady flow of illegal aliens while delaying any chance of real enforcement on the border.

---

A couple other folks also mentioned that Dems wouldn't have enforced the law. I'm going to respond to you here because you're making a more thoughtful case than most, which I appreciate, so thank you.

The gist of the argument is, "We didn't pass the bill because the Dems wouldn't have enforced it anyway. Any Dem who says they would have enforced it is a stupid, commie liar." That is weak sauce for two reasons.

First, even if that was a real concern, you still pass the bill, call the Dems out if they don't take action and then you at least have the legislation in place the next time a Republican administration is in power. You still dare the Dems to decline action even if you think they aren't sincere. Seriously, this is the only reasonable thing to do.

Second, after the bill got shot down, Biden did take executive action to reduce asylum claims while illegal crossings were up. But, it would have been preferable to have the legislation in place to more explicitly authorize the action. This is what makes me think he would have given approval to act. Since he finally took action without the legislation, it's disingenuous to say he wouldn't have taken action with the bill in place.

You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to think either of these lines of reasoning hold any water. The only folks who sound more silly are the ones in west Austin who can't muster an argument beyond, "hur dur, you dummy with your facts and logic."

---

You continue to want to get in with the pigs and wallow around while ignoring the plain truth (already stated on here) that the Trump Admin had been able to control the border. It is still controllable by the simple expedient of sending every single illegal immigrant back.

---

I hear what you're saying, and I acknowledged that Trump's policies were effective at the time. But people need to realize that Trump's success at the border was fool's gold. It's like the football team that runs up the score against cupcakes and pounds their chest about having the best offense based on PPG/YPG/etc. but then they can't win against top teams. They ignore the structural deficiencies in the program and then five years later you have no trophies and the recruiting pipeline is a disaster.

That's all because Trump didn't fix the underlying structural issues with our immigration system. He didn't modernize our asylum process (which was never meant to handle these volumes at the border, and is being abused) and he didn't do anything to improve the process for legal immigration.

Further, many of Trump's actions were struck down by the courts or facing legal challenges. I put this in another thread, so sorry for the copy paste, but these are some of major policy changes under Trump that were struck down:

Quote:

---

• 2017 - ICE ended the Family Case Management Program and rolled out a policy of prolonged and indefinite detention of asylum seekers; Blocked by a federal court in 2018 in Damus v. McAleenan
• 2018 - Jeff Sessions announced a "zero-tolerance" policy to criminally prosecute asylum seekers, triggering widespread family separation. Federal judge ruled against this practice in Ms. L v Ice; Civil lawsuits are still ongoing for civil rights violations
• 2018 - Jeff Sessions introduced policies to block asylum seekers suffering from domestic and gang violence; Federal judge blocked this in Dec 2018 in Grace v. Whitaker
• 2018 - CBP implemented "turn back" / metering policy to turn away asylum seekers and force them to wait weeks or months before applying; Federal judge found this illegal in Al Otro Lado v. Nielsen
• 2018 - Trump admin barred migrants crossing outside ports of entry from asylum eligibility; Multiple lawsuits found this illegal, including at the appeals court level (for example East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump)
• 2019 - MPP (Remain in Mexico) - In April 2019 a federal district court in California granted a preliminary injunction, which would have temporarily halted the policy. The Ninth Circuit initially stayed the injunction allowing MPP to remain in effect but restored it in February 2020, ruling unequivocally that MPP violates both U.S. and international law. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which put the injunction on hold as it considered the case, leaving the policy in place until the Biden administration terminated it. Following the termination, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court, which vacated the injunction as moot. The labor union representing asylum officers filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to strike down MPP as a directive that was "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations."
• 2019 - USCIS issued a memo to take away protections from unaccompanied minors during the asylum process; Blocked by a federal judge with a restraining order in August 2019 (J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security), settlement discussions are ongoing

---

So we need new laws, there has to be a change coming from Congress on this.

And on last point to your comment about sending every single illegal immigrant back...it's a great idea, but it's pollyanna-ish right now. Even Trump didn't stop all illegal immigration and he definitely didn't remove all the illegal immigrants that were already here. And that was when the volumes were much lower. We need fundamental changes to the system.

Max Boredom said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Quote:

---

Here's what GOP leadership said about it at the time:

Lankford, the chief GOP negotiator, touted the asylum and immigration changes in the legislation.

"The border security bill will put a huge number of new enforcement tools in the hands of a future administration and push the current Administration to finally stop the illegal flow," he said in a statement. "The bill provides funding to build the wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. The border security bill ends the abuse of parole on our southwest border that has waived in over a million people. It dramatically changes our ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation."

---

All of that required approval of the President before it could proceed.

What makes you think Biden would have given approval?

Notice what Lankford said regarding his negotiated bill. The bill gives enforcement tools to a future GOP Administration.

If those enforcement tools could only come from approval of a President, then Lankford full well knew they would be blocked in the same manner by Oldfinger.

Dead on arrival because it did nothing but guarantee a steady flow of illegal aliens while delaying any chance of real enforcement on the border.

---

A couple other folks also mentioned that Dems wouldn't have enforced the law. I'm going to respond to you here because you're making a more thoughtful case than most, which I appreciate, so thank you.

The gist of the argument is, "We didn't pass the bill because the Dems wouldn't have enforced it anyway. Any Dem who says they would have enforced it is a stupid, commie liar." That is weak sauce for two reasons.

First, even if that was a real concern, you still pass the bill, call the Dems out if they don't take action and then you at least have the legislation in place the next time a Republican administration is in power. You still dare the Dems to decline action even if you think they aren't sincere. Seriously, this is the only reasonable thing to do.

Second, after the bill got shot down, Biden did take executive action to reduce asylum claims while illegal crossings were up. But, it would have been preferable to have the legislation in place to more explicitly authorize the action. This is what makes me think he would have given approval to act. Since he finally took action without the legislation, it's disingenuous to say he wouldn't have taken action with the bill in place.

You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to think either of these lines of reasoning hold any water. The only folks who sound more silly are the ones in west Austin who can't muster an argument beyond, "hur dur, you dummy with your facts and logic."

---

You continue to want to get in with the pigs and wallow around while ignoring the plain truth (already stated on here) that the Trump Admin had been able to control the border. It is still controllable by the simple expedient of sending every single illegal immigrant back.

---

I hear what you're saying, and I acknowledged that Trump's policies were effective at the time. But people need to realize that Trump's success at the border was fool's gold. It's like the football team that runs up the score against cupcakes and pounds their chest about having the best offense based on PPG/YPG/etc. but then they can't win against top teams. They ignore the structural deficiencies in the program and then five years later you have no trophies and the recruiting pipeline is a disaster.

That's all because Trump didn't fix the underlying structural issues with our immigration system. He didn't modernize our asylum process (which was never meant to handle these volumes at the border, and is being abused) and he didn't do anything to improve the process for legal immigration.

Further, many of Trump's actions were struck down by the courts or facing legal challenges. I put this in another thread, so sorry for the copy paste, but these are some of major policy changes under Trump that were struck down:

Quote:

---

• 2017 - ICE ended the Family Case Management Program and rolled out a policy of prolonged and indefinite detention of asylum seekers; Blocked by a federal court in 2018 in Damus v. McAleenan
• 2018 - Jeff Sessions announced a "zero-tolerance" policy to criminally prosecute asylum seekers, triggering widespread family separation. Federal judge ruled against this practice in Ms. L v Ice; Civil lawsuits are still ongoing for civil rights violations
• 2018 - Jeff Sessions introduced policies to block asylum seekers suffering from domestic and gang violence; Federal judge blocked this in Dec 2018 in Grace v. Whitaker
• 2018 - CBP implemented "turn back" / metering policy to turn away asylum seekers and force them to wait weeks or months before applying; Federal judge found this illegal in Al Otro Lado v. Nielsen
• 2018 - Trump admin barred migrants crossing outside ports of entry from asylum eligibility; Multiple lawsuits found this illegal, including at the appeals court level (for example East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump)
• 2019 - MPP (Remain in Mexico) - In April 2019 a federal district court in California granted a preliminary injunction, which would have temporarily halted the policy. The Ninth Circuit initially stayed the injunction allowing MPP to remain in effect but restored it in February 2020, ruling unequivocally that MPP violates both U.S. and international law. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which put the injunction on hold as it considered the case, leaving the policy in place until the Biden administration terminated it. Following the termination, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court, which vacated the injunction as moot. The labor union representing asylum officers filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to strike down MPP as a directive that was "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations."
• 2019 - USCIS issued a memo to take away protections from unaccompanied minors during the asylum process; Blocked by a federal judge with a restraining order in August 2019 (J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security), settlement discussions are ongoing

---

So we need new laws, there has to be a change coming from Congress on this.

And on last point to your comment about sending every single illegal immigrant back...it's a great idea, but it's pollyanna-ish right now. Even Trump didn't stop all illegal immigration and he definitely didn't remove all the illegal immigrants that were already here. And that was when the volumes were much lower. We need fundamental changes to the system.

---

Everybody fully acknowledges we need new laws, but in the meantime you don't let 10,000,000 people in waiting for their asylum hearings.

Ag with kids said:

---

What would change in the bill? For starters, everything Mike Lee stated. Just because you "responded" to every point of criticism doesn't mean you're correct. Your responses were perfect if your goal is to allow lots of people into the country.

---

Ok, that's fine if you support Lee's ideas. Do you have any suggestions that would actually get past a divided Congress?

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

What would change in the bill? For starters, everything Mike Lee stated. Just because you "responded" to every point of criticism doesn't mean you're correct. Your responses were perfect if your goal is to allow lots of people into the country.

---

Ok, that's fine if you support Lee's ideas. Do you have any suggestions that would actually get past a divided Congress?

---

Well, then you pull everything out that isn't bipartisan and pass THAT bill. Then start tackling the things that were taken out one by one and see if you could find some middle ground on them or if they just need to get tossed in the ****ter. That 5000 number? It's going there.

But, the Dems don't want to do that...because they don't REALLY want to reform immigration and prevent people from just coming in.

They had 3 years prior to that to do something and for all 3 years we were told there was NO PROBLEM. Then, when it appeared they could gain a political win by ****ing the Republicans (and the blue states started seeing what it was like to have **** tons of immigrants flowing in), they jumped right into FIXING THE PROBLEM (that didn't exist, remember).

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

What would change in the bill? For starters, everything Mike Lee stated. Just because you "responded" to every point of criticism doesn't mean you're correct. Your responses were perfect if your goal is to allow lots of people into the country.

---

Ok, that's fine if you support Lee's ideas. Do you have any suggestions that would actually get past a divided Congress?

---

Here's a radical thought………..Start by enforcing the LAWS already on the books. Why would Congress not want to do that?

There are bipartisan things like hiring more border agents that should have been done, but I believe it was the Dems who tried to bundle those with nonsense that caused Trump and the Republicans to cry foul.

it was not a bipartisan compromise in good faith. it was a trap by socialist politicians, who put their power grabbing above the safety and security of citizens, that was averted.

Quote:

---

the Senate bill:

• Accepts and codifies crisis levels of daily illegal immigration. If passed into law the bill would create a three-year "Border Emergency Authority" to allow agents to expel illegal aliens back across the border during "extraordinary migration circumstances"but the numerous exceptions and limitations swallow that authority whole. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to activate the authority after the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encounters an average of 4,000 illegal aliens daily for seven consecutive days. Secretary activation of the emergency authority becomes mandatory after the CBP encounters a 5,000 illegal-alien daily average for seven consecutive days or 8,500 in one day. Not counted in those numbers are unaccompanied children, parolees, those who claim a fear of persecution, have already been in the U.S. for 14 days, or already traveled beyond 100 miles from the southwest border. The Secretary would not be able to activate the authority for more than 270 days, 225 days, and 180 days in calendar years one, two, and three, respectively. The bill then adds cumbersome and confusing calendar calculation requirements that further limit the Secretary's use of the emergency authority. Finally, both the Secretary and the President could suspend the authority.
Continuing to allow these crisis-level numbers of illegal-alien encounters means that border agents would remain overwhelmed and more illegal crossers would evade the agentsturning into "gotaways"and bad actors would slip thorough limited and rushed vetting.
• Continues "catch and release" and guts the mandatory detention statute. Current law mandates detention for any alien who illegally enters the U.S. while pursuing asylum protection. The Senate bill redefines "detention" to "noncustodial detention" and applies this supervised release-by-another-name only to adults. If passed into law, families and children would be released without supervision. Worse, the bill codifies the Flores settlement agreement, as interpreted by a single U.S. district judge in California, who ruled that unaccompanied aliens could not be in immigration detention longer than 20 days. She later expanded her ruling to accompanied aliens, meaning families. This bill encourages more child recycling by cartels so that more aliens would pose as families to avoid even supervised release. DHS Enforcement Lifecycle Reports show that aliens released from detention are rarely removed and are far less likely to abide by a court-issued deportation order. Noncustodial release will result in a significant increase in the alien fugitive backlog.
• Expands and codifies Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas's mass parole abuse. The Senate should have adopted the parole-narrowing text from the House-passed bill, the Secure the Border Act (H.R. 2). Instead, the Senate bill expands parole beyond exigent medical circumstances and a significant law enforcement or intelligence purpose for those arriving at or between land ports of entry. It includes other urgent humanitarian reasons, religious and cultural celebrations, and permits an accompanying alien to join the principal alien. In addition, the bill does not limit parole for aliens arriving at air or seaports.
• Continues to encourage asylum fraud and accelerates work permits. In violation of the Homeland Security Act and section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Secretary Mayorkas finalized a rule in which he removed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys and immigration judges from credible fear asylum cases. He replaced them with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers reviewing their fellow asylum officers, resulting in rubber stamping grants of asylum. If enacted, the Senate bill would codify Secretary Mayorkas' asylum processing rule. It would give aliens work authorization immediately upon release and create a bureaucratic third administrative appellate body with multiple chances for review, reconsideration, appeal, and motions to reopen their case. This would continue to encourage illegal aliens to submit fraudulent asylum claims to gain entry and remain and work in the U.S.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

What would change in the bill? For starters, everything Mike Lee stated. Just because you "responded" to every point of criticism doesn't mean you're correct. Your responses were perfect if your goal is to allow lots of people into the country.

---

Ok, that's fine if you support Lee's ideas. Do you have any suggestions that would actually get past a divided Congress?

---

Well, then you pull everything out that isn't bipartisan and pass THAT bill. Then start tackling the things that were taken out one by one and see if you could find some middle ground on them or if they just need to get tossed in the ****ter. That 5000 number? It's going there.

But, the Dems don't want to do that...because they don't REALLY want to reform immigration and prevent people from just coming in.

They had 3 years prior to that to do something and for all 3 years we were told there was NO PROBLEM. Then, when it appeared they could gain a political win by ****ing the Republicans (and the blue states started seeing what it was like to have **** tons of immigrants flowing in), they jumped right into FIXING THE PROBLEM (that didn't exist, remember).

---

If not 5000, what do you think the number should be and why?

Keep in mind, this is the number of encounters per day before things get shut down. There is no guarantee that any of those 5000 are allowed into the country. All 5000 will get deported if they don't meet requirements to be here or seek asylum. It's what Lankford said:

Quote:

---

"It's not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that's ridiculous," Lankford said on the Senate floor. "The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport."

---

I'm assuming (don't know for sure and haven't found a link) that this number is based on what DHS says they can process at requested funding levels without getting overwhelmed. This seems like the right approach in general: let DHS screen and deport as many people as possible at the level we're willing to fund, and then shut it down.

Regarding the 3 year delay from Biden, I completely agree with you. They waited too long thinking things would settle down on their own. They should have gotten more involved way before political pressure ramped up.

Logos Stick said:

---

is Max Boredom the reincarnation of John Maplethorpe? The gaslighting is off the charts with this guy, just like with Maplethorpe.

---

I asked that on another thread, but either that post or that thread got nuked.

It doesn't really matter does it. The accusation serves its purpose.

Max Boredom said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Opalka said:

---

damiond said:

---

"This was not meeting the Republicans on the 50 yard line, this was meeting them on the 10 yard line," Kelly said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," referring to the bipartisan border bill that would have imposed tough overhauls on the border, but was killed after Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to vote against it.
"On their side of the field, we realized, we've got to get operational control over the border. I realized this, Kamala Harris realizes this, and this legislation was going to do that," he added. "And our goal here was to get this legislation passed and then start working on comprehensive immigration reform. But this was stopped dead in its tracks by Donald Trump because he wanted to have this as an election issue. Like a lot of other Republicans, they don't actually want to solve this problem."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/sen-mark-kelly-rips-trump-role-killing-bipartisan-border-bill-rcna164443

Mark Kelly is lying. The fake Border Bill was designed to fail. It contained nearly $4 billion in funding for NGOs that are directing illegals into & throughout our country.

Biden created the border crisis through his Jan 2021 Executive Orders. He could also solve it instantly. https://t.co/l4DuNEFgdv

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) July 31, 2024

mark kelly is leftist scum that condones the lefts border invasion to destroy our country

---

Weren't republicans on the committee that helped write it? I think so. It was going to pass before Trump intervened. And voters know it.

---

Do you think that the bill was a good thing? That is the pertinent question.

If you think the bill was good law, how do you address the bad parts of the bill, like limiting the number of days you can close the border, or giving money to coyotes?

---

I think the bill was a step in the right direction, which is the same thing the Border Patrol said in their endorsement. That carries a lot of weight.

It's worth noting that most people, including Republicans, support a lot of the provisions in the bill. Things like hiring more asylum officers and border patrol agents just need to happen.

---

Quote:

---

If a bill had just these parts in them, and democrats supported it, the bill would have passed in less than a day. The problem is that the bill has plenty of poison pills in it, which is why it didn't pass.


As to the bad parts, you'd have to specify which parts you'd want to change. Looking at those polls, there's plenty of stuff in there that's way less popular with Democrats than with Republicans.

Limiting the number of days you can close the border? I'll go back to what I said on the Mike Lee comments:

Quote:

---

LIMITED DURATION: Limits the number of days each year where authority to shut down the border can be in place: 270 days in first calendar year, 225 days in the second year and 180 days in the third year. The period that this "border shutdown" is mandatory decreases in year one, the first 90 days are mandatory; in year two, the first 75 days are mandatory; and in year three, only the first 60 days are mandatory. I don't know that I feel too strongly about this, but probably two ways to look at this. One, I imagine this is a compromise because Dems want to prevent a future Trump admin from using this law to shutdown the border for 10 years the first time volume surges. Second, it creates a mechanism to encourage active management of the border. If we can't solve the surge in 225, Congress better get its act together to figure out another approach.

---

---

It's funny. The main opposition to the bill was that it gives the executive too much power to not resolve the border crisis, and even make it worse, if that is what the executive wants. Why are there protections against making the border too closed, but not protections in the bill from making the border too open? Feel free to play obtuse and pretend you don't know that I am talking about.

Quote:

---

Giving money to coyotes? Haven't seen that anywhere and it didn't make Mike Lee's "dirty dozen" list of complaints, so pretty sure this is a myth.

---

Not enough protection in the bill around what qualifies as an NGO that receives funding from the bill. It would absolutely funnel money to cayotes if passed.