Dear Max:

Even the UN says you can't cross multiple borders to asylum shop

Take the L

these people can spend all this time coming up with some arguments on why republicans should have signed a "bipartisan" bill that wasn't going to do that much, but they will still refuse to explain why they voted to get us to this point in the first place.

why vote for the ones who campaigned on not having a wall? why is a secure border such a bad thing that you vote against it so construction would cease immediately? why vote for those who campaign on a path to amnesty for the millions already here illegally knowing it was an open invitation for millions more to start caravanning themselves over here? why did we need this? how does this help citizens?

asylum used to be for refugees- people fleeing war-torn lands or escaping from oppressive political regimes. you voted for people who think asylum means being poor and wanting free stuff and that we have unlimited free stuff to give if we can hire 87,000 more IRS agents to help with the redistribution. you wanted to let them all in first - over 10 million from over 180 different countries in less than 4 years - then offer a path to amnesty knowing they will never face a real hearing on their asylum claims. that, or their claims will just be accepted anyway. Why? Why do we need them now? How does this help us?

BusterAg said:

---

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.

---

There are some new protections in the bill:

• Sets the 5000/day cap on encounters before shutdown (There's no cap today and back in December we were seeing 8000/day)
• Raises the bar to qualify for asylum
• Provides funding for more border patrol agents
• Provides funding specifically targeting drug and human trafficking

Not trying to be obtuse, but what protections did you have in mind? Something like entry rates would be restricted if the current population of undocumented residents exceeds a certain number? Or maybe locking things down if a certain percentage of asylum seekers fail to show for hearings? Things like that seem reasonable to me because they're triggers that the system could be getting overwhelmed.

BusterAg said:

---

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.

---

I'll take your word on this because it's an area I haven't looked at. I'd be onboard with putting restrictions on what qualifies as an NGO.

Max Boredom said:

---

Not trying to be obtuse, but what protections did you have in mind?

---

The problem is it gives the executive too much authority to not enforce border security. Here are some protections:

1) Remove the power of the executive branch to grant asylum or parole. This thing should be dead in the water until that provision is removed. That authority should rest in the judicial branch, period. This is, by far, the biggest problem of the bill. Giving that authority to the executive branch gives the executive branch too much power to open the borders. We need separation of powers. Making legal determinations should not be handed over to an executive branch that has failed to follow current law.

2) Give the states the power to deport illegal aliens if federal resources are "overwhelmed", or the border is shut down. Once you get over 5,000 interactions a day, let the states chip in to reduce interactions. Giving the federal executive branch the only authority to manage border security is what got us in this mess in the first place. This choke hold needs to be weakened, not strengthened.

3) Ramp up the number of days you can close the border every year, as opposed to ramping it down. If the problem is getting worse, enforcement should get tougher, not weaker, until a new plan is created.

The bill as written just codifies the Biden / Harris defiance of the current law.

I really think you are smart enough to know that, honestly, but it is what you want.

Quote:

---

I'll take your word on this because it's an area I haven't looked at. I'd be onboard with putting restrictions on what qualifies as an NGO.

---

I have a better idea. No funding for NGOs. Give the money to the states to help with enforcement instead. Why should any money at all go to NGOs?

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Dear Max:

Even the UN says you can't cross multiple borders to asylum shop

Take the L

---

You may have some updated sources, but I'm pretty sure that's a misconception. The UN Refugee Convention didn't say anything about asylum seekers needing to apply in the first country they encounter. Some countries (e.g. EU countries; US & Canada) have treaties in place to collaborate, but those are country-specific.

Plus, the UN takes the position that, consistent with international refugee and human rights law and standards, detention of asylum seekers should be avoided and considered only as a measure of last resort. So, we're clearly not going to follow UN guidelines exclusively when it comes to US asylum laws.

We should look at treaties with other countries to adopt "first country" policies, but that won't solve the entire problem.

And on a purely personal experience basis, I will say that Dems tend to get away with not obeying the exact letter of any law they dislike while Republicans get jailed and fined for misdemeanor mistakes that get called felonies.
So naturally it is always the Dems who want to pass more and more unnecessary laws... if Republicans push for a social law, it is because they are getting genuine grassroots pressure.
Republicans are also bribable by international corps, but it does seem to be the Dems doing most of the retiring to multimillion dollar mansions. Of course, things like inheritance and stock plays cloud this process.

When you cross 3-6 other countries to get here you are not an asylum seeker

Max Boredom said:

---

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.

---

Zero. You don't codify an "acceptable" number if illegal entries into the country. They're illegal entries. Should we start codifying "acceptable" levels of other crimes, too? Say, 100 robberies is Ok, but 200 is where the enforcement starts?

And all 5000 (that's just one day, it's 1.8 million for a year) will be deported? How will you find them?

They deliberately removed everything Trump had done which had severely stemmed the flow and did it ONLY because Trump had put it in place. Why would it settle down? They basically opened the front door and had a "Come on in" sign at the border. Why WOULDN'T people keep coming?

There are Dem run cities where shoplifting is not prosecuted unless it reaches some magic number.
Naturally, shoplifting has increased in every one of those cities.
I don't think enforcement should always mean arrest with charges but when someone is caught shoplifting that person should fear that could happen and at least promise not to reenter the store if so requested.
Same thing with the border, there needs to be at least some possible repercussion.

Ag with kids said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

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.

---

Zero. You don't codify an "acceptable" number if illegal entries into the country. They're illegal entries. Should we start codifying "acceptable" levels of other crimes, too? Say, 100 robberies is Ok, but 200 is where the enforcement starts?

And all 5000 (that's just one day, it's 1.8 million for a year) will be deported? How will you find them?

They deliberately removed everything Trump had done which had severely stemmed the flow and did it ONLY because Trump had put it in place. Why would it settle down? They basically opened the front door and had a "Come on in" sign at the border. Why WOULDN'T people keep coming?

---

Ok, ok, I get what you're saying.

First, let's be on the same page, those first 5000 don't get a free pass. When those people run into border patrol, they're going to get screened and they're going to get sent back right away if they're not making an asylum claim. They aren't being released into the country. We don't have to go find people in that group of 5000, because they've already run into border patrol.

And you're right, we don't set an acceptable number of robberies. But we also don't block all customers from entering a store because we caught 1 shoplifter.

Regarding the acceptable number, let's keep in mind that we're trying to balance two different interests here.

Interest #1 is the original intent of our asylum system, to offer protection to people facing death and violence because of war and persecution. For example, hypothetically, how do we help people who are literally fleeing for their lives when the cartels overthrow the Mexican government? Those are the people asylum is designed for and we offer help because a) it's the moral and humane thing to do and b) because we would want others to do the same for us.

While Mexico isn't in the midst of a civil war right now, our asylum policy needs to exhibit the foresight to look into the future and see this as a realistic scenario. Asylum was born from the absolute worst atrocities of the 20th century and we will be failing future generations if we don't empower them to respond to similar catastrophes.

Interest #2 is protecting the American people and our resources. We have to be able to screen people coming in and we can't write a blank check to every person who puts their hand out.

Our asylum system is absolutely being abused. The majority of people requesting asylum at our southern border are coming here for economic reasons (better jobs) and don't have a valid asylum claim. But we can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to find ways to honor the original intent of asylum while still protecting our American interests.

If you're entrenched in your position that we should block asylum claims if we have more than 0 illegal entrants, then it's clear we have different opinions on what America should aspire towards as the shining city on a hill. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for sharing the ideas, let me try to respond.

BusterAg said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

Not trying to be obtuse, but what protections did you have in mind?

---

The problem is it gives the executive too much authority to not enforce border security. Here are some protections:

1) Remove the power of the executive branch to grant asylum or parole. This thing should be dead in the water until that provision is removed. That authority should rest in the judicial branch, period. This is, by far, the biggest problem of the bill. Giving that authority to the executive branch gives the executive branch too much power to open the borders. We need separation of powers. Making legal determinations should not be handed over to an executive branch that has failed to follow current law.

---

Before I deep dive into this one, are you talking about humanitarian parole like what was used to bring in Afghans? Or something else? As far as I know, not even the House bill proposed shifting this to the judicial branch.

BusterAg said:

---

2) Give the states the power to deport illegal aliens if federal resources are "overwhelmed", or the border is shut down. Once you get over 5,000 interactions a day, let the states chip in to reduce interactions. Giving the federal executive branch the only authority to manage border security is what got us in this mess in the first place. This choke hold needs to be weakened, not strengthened.

---

That's an interesting idea. There would have to be mechanisms in place to make sure actions taken by state or local agencies still complied with federal law. That would probably mean some level of specific training for those officers/agents. There would also need to be enough asylum officers and immigration judges to process the immigrants coming through those agencies. Has this been brought up before? Curious what the debate was on the idea.

BusterAg said:

---

3) Ramp up the number of days you can close the border every year, as opposed to ramping it down. If the problem is getting worse, enforcement should get tougher, not weaker, until a new plan is created.

---

Honestly I haven't seen any analysis explaining where these day limits came from and what the intent is. If you or anyone else has seen one I'd be really interested in taking a look. My guess has been that it's some combination of a) preventing a Trump admin from shutting the border indefinitely or b) trying to force Congress to take action (similar to how the debt ceiling has to be raised periodically).

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

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.

---

Zero. You don't codify an "acceptable" number if illegal entries into the country. They're illegal entries. Should we start codifying "acceptable" levels of other crimes, too? Say, 100 robberies is Ok, but 200 is where the enforcement starts?

And all 5000 (that's just one day, it's 1.8 million for a year) will be deported? How will you find them?

They deliberately removed everything Trump had done which had severely stemmed the flow and did it ONLY because Trump had put it in place. Why would it settle down? They basically opened the front door and had a "Come on in" sign at the border. Why WOULDN'T people keep coming?

---

Ok, ok, I get what you're saying.

First, let's be on the same page, those first 5000 don't get a free pass. When those people run into border patrol, they're going to get screened and they're going to get sent back right away if they're not making an asylum claim. They aren't being released into the country. We don't have to go find people in that group of 5000, because they've already run into border patrol.

And you're right, we don't set an acceptable number of robberies. But we also don't block all customers from entering a store because we caught 1 shoplifter.

Regarding the acceptable number, let's keep in mind that we're trying to balance two different interests here.

Interest #1 is the original intent of our asylum system, to offer protection to people facing death and violence because of war and persecution. For example, hypothetically, how do we help people who are literally fleeing for their lives when the cartels overthrow the Mexican government? Those are the people asylum is designed for and we offer help because a) it's the moral and humane thing to do and b) because we would want others to do the same for us.

While Mexico isn't in the midst of a civil war right now, our asylum policy needs to exhibit the foresight to look into the future and see this as a realistic scenario. Asylum was born from the absolute worst atrocities of the 20th century and we will be failing future generations if we don't empower them to respond to similar catastrophes.

Interest #2 is protecting the American people and our resources. We have to be able to screen people coming in and we can't write a blank check to every person who puts their hand out.

Our asylum system is absolutely being abused. The majority of people requesting asylum at our southern border are coming here for economic reasons (better jobs) and don't have a valid asylum claim. But we can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to find ways to honor the original intent of asylum while still protecting our American interests.

If you're entrenched in your position that we should block asylum claims if we have more than 0 illegal entrants, then it's clear we have different opinions on what America should aspire towards as the shining city on a hill. We'll have to agree to disagree.

---

Do you have the slightest idea what you're babbling about? Those 5000 need to be processed and identified immediately while somewhere another 5000 are going between checkpoints overwhelming the available resources.

Do you know a single front line CBP person on the border who thinks this is a good idea? No? GTFO here with your border ignorant nonsense.

You're telling us what would happen if some law were to be made into a law, while still ignoring the fact that the people in charge, who would be responsible for enforcing said law....currently completely disregard the current law.

Pull your head out, dude. You're fighting for completely ******ed ideas.

Trust us this time, if you pass this bill that makes us not look completely inept, we will ship up and fix the problem that we, ourselves, willingly ignored and covered up for 3 years.


THAT is the pitch? Lol.

No wonder it went over like dog**** ran over 4 times in Congress.

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

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.

---

Zero. You don't codify an "acceptable" number if illegal entries into the country. They're illegal entries. Should we start codifying "acceptable" levels of other crimes, too? Say, 100 robberies is Ok, but 200 is where the enforcement starts?

And all 5000 (that's just one day, it's 1.8 million for a year) will be deported? How will you find them?

They deliberately removed everything Trump had done which had severely stemmed the flow and did it ONLY because Trump had put it in place. Why would it settle down? They basically opened the front door and had a "Come on in" sign at the border. Why WOULDN'T people keep coming?

---

Ok, ok, I get what you're saying.

First, let's be on the same page, those first 5000 don't get a free pass. When those people run into border patrol, they're going to get screened and they're going to get sent back right away if they're not making an asylum claim. They aren't being released into the country. We don't have to go find people in that group of 5000, because they've already run into border patrol.

And you're right, we don't set an acceptable number of robberies. But we also don't block all customers from entering a store because we caught 1 shoplifter.

Regarding the acceptable number, let's keep in mind that we're trying to balance two different interests here.

Interest #1 is the original intent of our asylum system, to offer protection to people facing death and violence because of war and persecution. For example, hypothetically, how do we help people who are literally fleeing for their lives when the cartels overthrow the Mexican government? Those are the people asylum is designed for and we offer help because a) it's the moral and humane thing to do and b) because we would want others to do the same for us.

While Mexico isn't in the midst of a civil war right now, our asylum policy needs to exhibit the foresight to look into the future and see this as a realistic scenario. Asylum was born from the absolute worst atrocities of the 20th century and we will be failing future generations if we don't empower them to respond to similar catastrophes.

Interest #2 is protecting the American people and our resources. We have to be able to screen people coming in and we can't write a blank check to every person who puts their hand out.

Our asylum system is absolutely being abused. The majority of people requesting asylum at our southern border are coming here for economic reasons (better jobs) and don't have a valid asylum claim. But we can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to find ways to honor the original intent of asylum while still protecting our American interests.

If you're entrenched in your position that we should block asylum claims if we have more than 0 illegal entrants, then it's clear we have different opinions on what America should aspire towards as the shining city on a hill. We'll have to agree to disagree.

---

Customers don't tend to come through the windows and back door.

Asylum should be RARE.

Look, reality is, every single country south of the US sucks to some level. Some have bad crime. But, we can't just let them all in. And very VERY few of of those people have asylum claims that meet the true qualification. The cartels are all over Mexico. Do ALL of them get to come in because it's ****ty there?

And, we HAVE a way to come into the country and claim asylum. Come to a port of entry. Wait in line. When it's your turn, they can evaluate it. If you don't meet the criteria, tough ****, go away.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON that crosses not at a port of entry needs to get the **** out and go get in line AT the port of entry. We'll get to you some time or the other.

Quote:

---

Before I deep dive into this one, are you talking about humanitarian parole like what was used to bring in Afghans? Or something else? As far as I know, not even the House bill proposed shifting this to the judicial branch.

---

You were asking me for common sense protections. This is one of them. Shift the decision to provide humanitarian parole to the courts.

Another thing that would be helpful is to codify that people that are here under humanitarian parole are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and all children born in the U.S. to parents who are here on humanitarian parole are not birthright citizens.

B-1 83 said:

---

Do you have the slightest idea what you're babbling about? Those 5000 need to be processed and identified immediately while somewhere another 5000 are going between checkpoints overwhelming the available resources.

Do you know a single front line CBP person on the border who thinks this is a good idea? No? GTFO here with your border ignorant nonsense.

---

I have 18000 border patrol agents represented by the National Border Patrol Council endorsing the bill.

Quote:

---

The National Border Patrol Council which represents more than 18,000 agents said the bill would "drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

"While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo," Brandon Judd, president of the council, said in the statement. "This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage."

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-bill-senate-bipartisan-border-patrol-endorsement-rcna137354


Grab a juice box and a cookie and sit this one out, sport. The grown ups are talking. Or maybe do just the barest minimum of research on the topic before you completely embarrass yourself again.

Max Boredom said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Do you have the slightest idea what you're babbling about? Those 5000 need to be processed and identified immediately while somewhere another 5000 are going between checkpoints overwhelming the available resources.

Do you know a single front line CBP person on the border who thinks this is a good idea? No? GTFO here with your border ignorant nonsense.

---

I have 18000 border patrol agents represented by the National Border Patrol Council endorsing the bill.

Quote:

---

The National Border Patrol Council which represents more than 18,000 agents said the bill would "drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

"While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo," Brandon Judd, president of the council, said in the statement. "This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage."

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-bill-senate-bipartisan-border-patrol-endorsement-rcna137354


Grab a juice box and a cookie and sit this one out, sport. The grown ups are talking. Or maybe do just the barest minimum of research on the topic before you completely embarrass yourself again.

---

No, you have the equivalence of the unions endorsing the democratic candidate while a vast majority of the union members vote for the republican. Can you answer why that is? The average BPA doesn't endorse this bill, their union bosses do. Hmm!

Max Boredom said:

---

Thanks for sharing the ideas, let me try to respond.

BusterAg said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

Not trying to be obtuse, but what protections did you have in mind?

---

The problem is it gives the executive too much authority to not enforce border security. Here are some protections:

1) Remove the power of the executive branch to grant asylum or parole. This thing should be dead in the water until that provision is removed. That authority should rest in the judicial branch, period. This is, by far, the biggest problem of the bill. Giving that authority to the executive branch gives the executive branch too much power to open the borders. We need separation of powers. Making legal determinations should not be handed over to an executive branch that has failed to follow current law.

---

Before I deep dive into this one, are you talking about humanitarian parole like what was used to bring in Afghans? Or something else? As far as I know, not even the House bill proposed shifting this to the judicial branch.

BusterAg said:

---

2) Give the states the power to deport illegal aliens if federal resources are "overwhelmed", or the border is shut down. Once you get over 5,000 interactions a day, let the states chip in to reduce interactions. Giving the federal executive branch the only authority to manage border security is what got us in this mess in the first place. This choke hold needs to be weakened, not strengthened.

---

That's an interesting idea. There would have to be mechanisms in place to make sure actions taken by state or local agencies still complied with federal law. That would probably mean some level of specific training for those officers/agents. There would also need to be enough asylum officers and immigration judges to process the immigrants coming through those agencies. Has this been brought up before? Curious what the debate was on the idea.

BusterAg said:

---

3) Ramp up the number of days you can close the border every year, as opposed to ramping it down. If the problem is getting worse, enforcement should get tougher, not weaker, until a new plan is created.

---

Honestly I haven't seen any analysis explaining where these day limits came from and what the intent is. If you or anyone else has seen one I'd be really interested in taking a look. My guess has been that it's some combination of a) preventing a Trump admin from shutting the border indefinitely or b) trying to force Congress to take action (similar to how the debt ceiling has to be raised periodically).

---

Stop your democratting.

Quote:

---

Unacceptably, 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.

---

https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/the-senate-border-bill-disaster-border-security

RGLAG85 said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Do you have the slightest idea what you're babbling about? Those 5000 need to be processed and identified immediately while somewhere another 5000 are going between checkpoints overwhelming the available resources.

Do you know a single front line CBP person on the border who thinks this is a good idea? No? GTFO here with your border ignorant nonsense.

---

I have 18000 border patrol agents represented by the National Border Patrol Council endorsing the bill.

Quote:

---

The National Border Patrol Council which represents more than 18,000 agents said the bill would "drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

"While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo," Brandon Judd, president of the council, said in the statement. "This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage."

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-bill-senate-bipartisan-border-patrol-endorsement-rcna137354


Grab a juice box and a cookie and sit this one out, sport. The grown ups are talking. Or maybe do just the barest minimum of research on the topic before you completely embarrass yourself again.

---

No, you have the equivalence of the unions endorsing the democratic candidate while a vast majority of the union members vote for the republican. Can you answer why that is? The average BPA doesn't endorse this bill, their union bosses do. Hmm!

---

Bingo! NOT.A.SINGLE.AGENT.I.KNOW.SUPPORTS.THIS. That union angle was exposed months ago as blatantly false.

Lankford is a dips##t for getting in bed with leftists to push that junk. OK needs to trade him out. He either agrees with it and wants illegals OR he is too stupid to see he was the useful GOP stooge for them to say it was "bipartisan". Idiot. He doesn't understand that he is dealing with people with zero morals. They have no shame. And he fell for it.

Max Boredom said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Do you have the slightest idea what you're babbling about? Those 5000 need to be processed and identified immediately while somewhere another 5000 are going between checkpoints overwhelming the available resources.

Do you know a single front line CBP person on the border who thinks this is a good idea? No? GTFO here with your border ignorant nonsense.

---

I have 18000 border patrol agents represented by the National Border Patrol Council endorsing the bill.

Quote:

---

The National Border Patrol Council which represents more than 18,000 agents said the bill would "drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

"While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo," Brandon Judd, president of the council, said in the statement. "This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage."

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-bill-senate-bipartisan-border-patrol-endorsement-rcna137354


Grab a juice box and a cookie and sit this one out, sport. The grown ups are talking. Or maybe do just the barest minimum of research on the topic before you completely embarrass yourself again.

---

Thank you for filling us in on the left's talking points. And yes your diatribe and doubling down on blatant misinformation has been embarrassing to the human race and children.

RGLAG85 said:

---

No, you have the equivalence of the unions endorsing the democratic candidate while a vast majority of the union members vote for the republican.

---

I'd get why someone would suspect that, but no. The National Border Patrol Council supported the bill, as I already quoted. At the same time, they came out and very clearly did not endorse Biden:

Quote:

---

"To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden."

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/4744787-biden-claims-border-patrol-endorsed-him-is-that-true/

It is possible to separate the policy discussion from the party politics. It's ok to not like Biden and still admit the border bill is a step in the right direction (not perfect, not a complete solution).

B-1 83 said:

---

Bingo! NOT.A.SINGLE.AGENT.I.KNOW.SUPPORTS.THIS. That union angle was exposed months ago as blatantly false.

---

Or just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

Ag with kids said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

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.

---

Zero. You don't codify an "acceptable" number if illegal entries into the country. They're illegal entries. Should we start codifying "acceptable" levels of other crimes, too? Say, 100 robberies is Ok, but 200 is where the enforcement starts?

And all 5000 (that's just one day, it's 1.8 million for a year) will be deported? How will you find them?

They deliberately removed everything Trump had done which had severely stemmed the flow and did it ONLY because Trump had put it in place. Why would it settle down? They basically opened the front door and had a "Come on in" sign at the border. Why WOULDN'T people keep coming?

---

Ok, ok, I get what you're saying.

First, let's be on the same page, those first 5000 don't get a free pass. When those people run into border patrol, they're going to get screened and they're going to get sent back right away if they're not making an asylum claim. They aren't being released into the country. We don't have to go find people in that group of 5000, because they've already run into border patrol.

And you're right, we don't set an acceptable number of robberies. But we also don't block all customers from entering a store because we caught 1 shoplifter.

Regarding the acceptable number, let's keep in mind that we're trying to balance two different interests here.

Interest #1 is the original intent of our asylum system, to offer protection to people facing death and violence because of war and persecution. For example, hypothetically, how do we help people who are literally fleeing for their lives when the cartels overthrow the Mexican government? Those are the people asylum is designed for and we offer help because a) it's the moral and humane thing to do and b) because we would want others to do the same for us.

While Mexico isn't in the midst of a civil war right now, our asylum policy needs to exhibit the foresight to look into the future and see this as a realistic scenario. Asylum was born from the absolute worst atrocities of the 20th century and we will be failing future generations if we don't empower them to respond to similar catastrophes.

Interest #2 is protecting the American people and our resources. We have to be able to screen people coming in and we can't write a blank check to every person who puts their hand out.

Our asylum system is absolutely being abused. The majority of people requesting asylum at our southern border are coming here for economic reasons (better jobs) and don't have a valid asylum claim. But we can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to find ways to honor the original intent of asylum while still protecting our American interests.

If you're entrenched in your position that we should block asylum claims if we have more than 0 illegal entrants, then it's clear we have different opinions on what America should aspire towards as the shining city on a hill. We'll have to agree to disagree.

---

Customers don't tend to come through the windows and back door.

Asylum should be RARE.

Look, reality is, every single country south of the US sucks to some level. Some have bad crime. But, we can't just let them all in. And very VERY few of of those people have asylum claims that meet the true qualification. The cartels are all over Mexico. Do ALL of them get to come in because it's ****ty there?

And, we HAVE a way to come into the country and claim asylum. Come to a port of entry. Wait in line. When it's your turn, they can evaluate it. If you don't meet the criteria, tough ****, go away.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON that crosses not at a port of entry needs to get the **** out and go get in line AT the port of entry. We'll get to you some time or the other.

---

You and I generally agree on the situation. Asylum should be exceedingly rare. People are definitely trying to take advantage of the asylum process. You'll get no argument from me there.

I hear what you're saying about ports of entry. I honestly wrestled with that a bit, but here's the rationale I settled on:

• If your house is on fire and you call 911, we don't check if you're current on your property taxes before sending a truck
• If your head is smashed in a car accident and you're rushed to the ER, we don't run your insurance before trying to save your life

We respond that way because those are emergency situations. Likewise, our asylum process was meant to deal with emergency situations (the next Rwanda, the next Holocaust, etc.). We should do everything in our power to keep those avenues open for when people really need it. I think we can find ways to do that and also effectively filter out and deter the economic migrants.

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Before I deep dive into this one, are you talking about humanitarian parole like what was used to bring in Afghans? Or something else? As far as I know, not even the House bill proposed shifting this to the judicial branch.

---

You were asking me for common sense protections. This is one of them. Shift the decision to provide humanitarian parole to the courts.

Another thing that would be helpful is to codify that people that are here under humanitarian parole are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and all children born in the U.S. to parents who are here on humanitarian parole are not birthright citizens.

---

THAT would probably solve a big part of the problem. Anchor babies give HUGE incentive to come here.

Max Boredom said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Do you have the slightest idea what you're babbling about? Those 5000 need to be processed and identified immediately while somewhere another 5000 are going between checkpoints overwhelming the available resources.

Do you know a single front line CBP person on the border who thinks this is a good idea? No? GTFO here with your border ignorant nonsense.

---

I have 18000 border patrol agents represented by the National Border Patrol Council endorsing the bill.

Quote:

---

The National Border Patrol Council which represents more than 18,000 agents said the bill would "drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

"While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo," Brandon Judd, president of the council, said in the statement. "This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage."

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-bill-senate-bipartisan-border-patrol-endorsement-rcna137354


Grab a juice box and a cookie and sit this one out, sport. The grown ups are talking. Or maybe do just the barest minimum of research on the topic before you completely embarrass yourself again.

---

How many BP agents do you know?

I guarantee he knows WAY more than you. When you live down in S TX that happens...

Max Boredom said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

No, you have the equivalence of the unions endorsing the democratic candidate while a vast majority of the union members vote for the republican.

---

I'd get why someone would suspect that, but no. The National Border Patrol Council supported the bill, as I already quoted. At the same time, they came out and very clearly did not endorse Biden:

Quote:

---

"To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden."

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/4744787-biden-claims-border-patrol-endorsed-him-is-that-true/

It is possible to separate the policy discussion from the party politics. It's ok to not like Biden and still admit the border bill is a step in the right direction (not perfect, not a complete solution).

B-1 83 said:

---

Bingo! NOT.A.SINGLE.AGENT.I.KNOW.SUPPORTS.THIS. That union angle was exposed months ago as blatantly false.

---

Or just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

---

No. The leadership did.

Did they take a poll of all the agents? (HINT: No)

And you know ZERO BP agents...your only knowledge of what is going on at the border is google.

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Max Boredom said:

---

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.

---

Zero. You don't codify an "acceptable" number if illegal entries into the country. They're illegal entries. Should we start codifying "acceptable" levels of other crimes, too? Say, 100 robberies is Ok, but 200 is where the enforcement starts?

And all 5000 (that's just one day, it's 1.8 million for a year) will be deported? How will you find them?

They deliberately removed everything Trump had done which had severely stemmed the flow and did it ONLY because Trump had put it in place. Why would it settle down? They basically opened the front door and had a "Come on in" sign at the border. Why WOULDN'T people keep coming?

---

Ok, ok, I get what you're saying.

First, let's be on the same page, those first 5000 don't get a free pass. When those people run into border patrol, they're going to get screened and they're going to get sent back right away if they're not making an asylum claim. They aren't being released into the country. We don't have to go find people in that group of 5000, because they've already run into border patrol.

And you're right, we don't set an acceptable number of robberies. But we also don't block all customers from entering a store because we caught 1 shoplifter.

Regarding the acceptable number, let's keep in mind that we're trying to balance two different interests here.

Interest #1 is the original intent of our asylum system, to offer protection to people facing death and violence because of war and persecution. For example, hypothetically, how do we help people who are literally fleeing for their lives when the cartels overthrow the Mexican government? Those are the people asylum is designed for and we offer help because a) it's the moral and humane thing to do and b) because we would want others to do the same for us.

While Mexico isn't in the midst of a civil war right now, our asylum policy needs to exhibit the foresight to look into the future and see this as a realistic scenario. Asylum was born from the absolute worst atrocities of the 20th century and we will be failing future generations if we don't empower them to respond to similar catastrophes.

Interest #2 is protecting the American people and our resources. We have to be able to screen people coming in and we can't write a blank check to every person who puts their hand out.

Our asylum system is absolutely being abused. The majority of people requesting asylum at our southern border are coming here for economic reasons (better jobs) and don't have a valid asylum claim. But we can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to find ways to honor the original intent of asylum while still protecting our American interests.

If you're entrenched in your position that we should block asylum claims if we have more than 0 illegal entrants, then it's clear we have different opinions on what America should aspire towards as the shining city on a hill. We'll have to agree to disagree.

---

Customers don't tend to come through the windows and back door.

Asylum should be RARE.

Look, reality is, every single country south of the US sucks to some level. Some have bad crime. But, we can't just let them all in. And very VERY few of of those people have asylum claims that meet the true qualification. The cartels are all over Mexico. Do ALL of them get to come in because it's ****ty there?

And, we HAVE a way to come into the country and claim asylum. Come to a port of entry. Wait in line. When it's your turn, they can evaluate it. If you don't meet the criteria, tough ****, go away.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON that crosses not at a port of entry needs to get the **** out and go get in line AT the port of entry. We'll get to you some time or the other.

---

You and I generally agree on the situation. Asylum should be exceedingly rare. People are definitely trying to take advantage of the asylum process. You'll get no argument from me there.

I hear what you're saying about ports of entry. I honestly wrestled with that a bit, but here's the rationale I settled on:

• If your house is on fire and you call 911, we don't check if you're current on your property taxes before sending a truck
• If your head is smashed in a car accident and you're rushed to the ER, we don't run your insurance before trying to save your life

We respond that way because those are emergency situations. Likewise, our asylum process was meant to deal with emergency situations (the next Rwanda, the next Holocaust, etc.). We should do everything in our power to keep those avenues open for when people really need it. I think we can find ways to do that and also effectively filter out and deter the economic migrants.

---

There's not an emergency south of us. It just sucks to live there because they have ****ty governments that are corrupt.

There are almost ZERO true cases that deserve asylum that come through our southern border. "My country sucks" is not a legimate reason.

Max Boredom said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

No, you have the equivalence of the unions endorsing the democratic candidate while a vast majority of the union members vote for the republican.

---

I'd get why someone would suspect that, but no. The National Border Patrol Council supported the bill, as I already quoted. At the same time, they came out and very clearly did not endorse Biden:

Quote:

---

"To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden."

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/4744787-biden-claims-border-patrol-endorsed-him-is-that-true/

It is possible to separate the policy discussion from the party politics. It's ok to not like Biden and still admit the border bill is a step in the right direction (not perfect, not a complete solution).

B-1 83 said:

---

Bingo! NOT.A.SINGLE.AGENT.I.KNOW.SUPPORTS.THIS. That union angle was exposed months ago as blatantly false.

---

Or just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

---

The problem is, if you pass Biden's bill, Democrats would take the position that the problem was fixed and no further legislation was needed. You can't completely divorce the policy aspects from the political aspects. Taking one step in the right direction, when you need to take three, doesn't make sense politically if, in doing so, you give your opponents a pretext for digging in their heels and refusing to take further steps.

Republicans were on the committee that helped write the bill. It was set to pass until Trump flexed his muscles and got republicans in line. Trump knew that if it passed, he'd lose that talking point in this election cycle. This isn't rocket science, it was in plain site, why Trump (and MAGA) wanted this bill to fail.

the low-IQ useful idiot brainwashed masses still believe the democrat narrative and pravda programming that big bad bully Trump flexed his big sculpted bronze muscles on all the republican lawmakers because he wants an open border for his campaign.

that bill was negotiated with the Biden admin and written in secret by Murphy (D-CT) and co-sponsors Lankford (R-OK), and Sinema (I-AZ). As soon as details started coming out, especially codifying levels of daily migration into law, a whole bunch of republican congressmen were screaming about it. Mike Lee was very vocal about it. Heritage Foundation wrote scathing report on it. Donald Trump posted a "truth" about it. That bill quickly became DOA once details started coming out on it.

Opalka said:

---

Republicans were on the committee that helped write the bill. It was set to pass until Trump flexed his muscles and got republicans in line. Trump knew that if it passed, he'd lose that talking point in this election cycle. This isn't rocket science, it was in plain site, why Trump (and MAGA) wanted this bill to fail.

---

And you have proof of this? Ok…..

Opalka said:

---

Republicans were on the committee that helped write the bill. It was set to pass until Trump flexed his muscles and got republicans in line. Trump knew that if it passed, he'd lose that talking point in this election cycle. This isn't rocket science, it was in plain site, why Trump (and MAGA) wanted this bill to fail.

---

Which Republicans? That makes a difference.

Ag with kids said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Before I deep dive into this one, are you talking about humanitarian parole like what was used to bring in Afghans? Or something else? As far as I know, not even the House bill proposed shifting this to the judicial branch.

---

You were asking me for common sense protections. This is one of them. Shift the decision to provide humanitarian parole to the courts.

Another thing that would be helpful is to codify that people that are here under humanitarian parole are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and all children born in the U.S. to parents who are here on humanitarian parole are not birthright citizens.

---

THAT would probably solve a big part of the problem. Anchor babies give HUGE incentive to come here.

---

The thing is, if that was put into the bill as a compromise, it would likely pass.

Opalka said:

---

Republicans were on the committee that helped write the bill. It was set to pass until Trump flexed his muscles and got republicans in line. Trump knew that if it passed, he'd lose that talking point in this election cycle. This isn't rocket science, it was in plain site, why Trump (and MAGA) wanted this bill to fail.

---

REPUBLICAN.

Singular, not plural. It was ONLY Lankford doing the negotiations.

There were also Murphy (D), Sinema (I, but caucuses with D), and the Biden admin (D).

And the only reason any Republicans liked the bill at all was because MOST OF THE MONEY in the bill was for Ukraine and Israel. Even calling it a border bill is a misnomer...

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Before I deep dive into this one, are you talking about humanitarian parole like what was used to bring in Afghans? Or something else? As far as I know, not even the House bill proposed shifting this to the judicial branch.

---

You were asking me for common sense protections. This is one of them. Shift the decision to provide humanitarian parole to the courts.

Another thing that would be helpful is to codify that people that are here under humanitarian parole are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and all children born in the U.S. to parents who are here on humanitarian parole are not birthright citizens.

---

Gotcha, thanks for confirming.

I think it makes sense to update the laws to put guardrails around parole. There are terms today ("urgent humanitarian reason" and "significant public benefit") that could probably use definitions in the law. The language proposed by Republicans in the House is more restrictive than what I'd use, but that's probably something that could be compromised on.

As far as moving authority to the judicial branch, I don't think I'm sold on that. There's a legit national security concern connected to humanitarian parole. It's been used going back 70+ years to allow in Hungarians escaping the Soviets, Cubans escaping Castro and recently Afghans escaping the Taliban. There were undoubtedly people in those groups who were helping the US in some way, maybe even some we were promised asylum for their help. That's really the kind of thing I'd want the executive branch to have flexibility over. Maybe there is a compromise in there with more judicial oversight for parolees?

The other thing with parole is that it's heavily connected to the backlog at the southern border. If we can fix the asylum process, beef up CBP/immigration judges, etc, the parole situation probably fixes itself to a large extent.