Kamala Harris' border crisis. Biden put her in charge. (3 Viewers)

[KarmaPolice]

Reading your responses - 1. thank you for the bolded. Not much drives me crazy as quickly as that.

I'm guilty of doing it - call me out when i do because most often I don't mean "you" directly towards anyone. Sometimes, not often

I think I can answer a couple of your questions this way: I don't believe either side wants a long term slow of the flow of immigrants, so that is a core departure in our thinking when we are talking about this issue - you believe the GOP when they say they want to stop it. The big bucks made is bipartisan, so my belief is this is more of a political game that ebbs and flows a little, but ultimately is what they want, again - because of $. Yes, I agree with you that the Ds role in this has become to position themselves as pro-immigration (increase the flow) and the Rs are currently presenting themselves as wanting to be tough on the border (decrease flow). BUT, because of the money involved (which this part we seem to agree on), I don't think a slow of flow like Trump was after would be "allowed" long term - ie, the dems would block it from starting, or the next D president would stop production of the wall - something. Spinning the wheels like we are, and playing this game so nothing really happens to the overall flow of immigrants long term. I am just making numbers up here, but let's say overall the powers that be are OK with an average of 1M immigrants a year, they will play this game and let the GOP slow the flow to 300K a year for a little, but then it's going to be 2M for a bit when the Ds get in control. Again, just making up numbers to show my general thinking, and again - my belief is that the GOP doesn't truly want it at that 300K level as a long term solution because they are going to lose a ton of profits. Everybody needs to get paid, and each of those feeds different industries that feed off these immigrants - ie big AG benifits from more workers, and the PIC is tied to deportations and other things, so they benefit when we clamp down on the immigrants. Everybody pockets getting lined, no long term solutions.

and you aren't totally wrong because when Bush or GW could have done something did they? Obama? but Trump actually was going to attack it hard and the Democrats filed lawsuits and fought him every day and when Biden got in, suspended the border projects and relaxed security and rules/restrictions and illegal numbers have soared

that's today's reality

IMO a couple things point to this being the case for me:

1. Nothing is done to speed up these applications clear the backlog. There is a benefit to have people here illegal for long stretches - industries can pay them less or don't have to pay benefits, industries I mention profit when they are arrested or deported as well. This is why the "game" is just to speed up and slow the flow of immigrants, but nothing is ever done to speed up the process to focus on legal immigration.

and I disagree with anyone being here illegally and it shouldn't be tens and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to sort through it all while they all live here illegally when in the end they'll just stay here illegally anyway regardless of a stupid court ruling that doesn't bind them

2. Nothing is ever done or seriously suggested to punish the practice of hiring these people on a large scale. IMO the best way to stop having so many illegals and others coming here would be to crack down severely on businesses hiring them - no jobs and opportunity, and the desire to come here largely goes away. This is why commish and I have said politicians like DeSantis are fine pointing the finger at the D states and sending people to NYC and MV, but he would probably never try to get rid of the ones in his state working the industries.

this is true - crack down HARD and stop giving all Govt anything to illegals. No cell phones, stuff like that. Unacceptable when so many US citizens struggle daily and we treat illegals better

we'll see how Desantis manages it all - but it IS telling that all the cities that fight for illegals being here hates them being here when they get to their communities huh ?

As to the voting part, what I have in mind is the immigrant vote from people who crossed, became citizens and then vote. I think when they talk about the Ds wanting these votes, they are basically just referring to the vote from the Mexican, Central American, and South American demographics. What they are suggesting is the Ds are buying their votes by letting them in - they are just so grateful for that they will largely vote D. It's being shown that is either not the case as much or at least that tide is changing. They vote with their wallet and on other topics just like everybody else. I am not suggesting that there are large numbers of illegal immigrants trying to or able to vote.

articles like this points to how illegal numbers impact voting

How removing unauthorized immigrants from census statistics could affect House reapportionment

If unauthorized U.S. immigrants aren't counted, 3 states could each lose a seat they otherwise would have had and 3 others each could gain one.

www.pewresearch.org

Sc- gotta say this is one of the better exchanges we have had around here in some time, thanks.

What I saw during Trumps 4 years is a large rejection of his ideas of the border in general. I could be wrong, but the rejection of the Wall is one aspect, but it was combined with the way he spoke of them and their countries and his policy of separating families which people found cruel. I felt it was presented as a package deal: Wall + separating families + remain in Mexico. Would the opposition to the wall been as strong it was separate from those other things? Dunno.

My guess is a less devisive politician could sell the idea of the Wall and maybe frame it in a different way to make it more palatable to the public.

Thanks for the article link, I will read that a little later when it's less chaotic.


In the meantime- is the main beef with our immigration system for the seeking asylum that is being exploited at a higher % vs immigrants coming from other places in the world? When I read yours and others posts it very much feels like a sentiment that the people coming in from the south are largely doing it wrong, and the people from everywhere else are doing it right. I see it as largely both are going through ways we have set up and allow as legit pathways (gotaways aside, I agree that's an issue), and once we let them in they should be treated the same - they aren't illegal they are immigrants here legitimately until proven otherwise in their hearing. I am trying to understand another POV.

No, it's not a 1:1, but I view it similar to the exploitable tax system. Who is more at fault- the people gaming the system within its rules and framework, or the people allowing those rules to remain and not changing them or enforcing them effectively?

 

[Stealthycat]

Sc- gotta say this is one of the better exchanges we have had around here in some time, thanks.

What I saw during Trumps 4 years is a large rejection of his ideas of the border in general. I could be wrong, but the rejection of the Wall is one aspect, but it was combined with the way he spoke of them and their countries and his policy of separating families which people found cruel. I felt it was presented as a package deal: Wall + separating families + remain in Mexico. Would the opposition to the wall been as strong it was separate from those other things? Dunno.

My guess is a less devisive politician could sell the idea of the Wall and maybe frame it in a different way to make it more palatable to the public.

we've had walls/barriers for years as deterrents - maybe Trump didn't sell it right, but Democrats fought the idea tooth and nail even though we already had barriers/walls and offered nothing better and now we got Biden-vasion by the millions

I reject the whole "separating families" .... like I've said, dragging a kid a thousand miles, with little food/water/shelter/health care with all the sex/human trafficking/drugs ... that's child abuse to an extreme and the way those kids are treated is so unacceptable to me that I cannot understand anyone wanting this to continue

Thanks for the article link, I will read that a little later when it's less chaotic.

I'd never thought about how millions of illegals can affect our voting system -

In the meantime- is the main beef with our immigration system for the seeking asylum that is being exploited at a higher % vs immigrants coming from other places in the world? When I read yours and others posts it very much feels like a sentiment that the people coming in from the south are largely doing it wrong, and the people from everywhere else are doing it right. I see it as largely both are going through ways we have set up and allow as legit pathways (gotaways aside, I agree that's an issue), and once we let them in they should be treated the same - they aren't illegal they are immigrants here legitimately until proven otherwise in their hearing. I am trying to understand another POV.

No, it's not a 1:1, but I view it similar to the exploitable tax system. Who is more at fault- the people gaming the system within its rules and framework, or the people allowing those rules to remain and not changing them or enforcing them effectively?

sigh

with very few exceptions they're not coming across the southern border for asylum - they're coming here because their home countries are crap

what system do we need in place for those millions and honestly hundreds of millions into billions of people world wide who live in crap countries and would love to come here and live? we cannot handle hundred of millions of poor/poverty people with no skills, speaks no english, has no education .... we simply cannot

we are the most generous country in the world accepting with immigration - and its horribly abused by the literally tens of millions that come here illegally

why even have citizenship anymore when illegals can live here just as easy as citizens?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Sc- gotta say this is one of the better exchanges we have had around here in some time, thanks.

What I saw during Trumps 4 years is a large rejection of his ideas of the border in general. I could be wrong, but the rejection of the Wall is one aspect, but it was combined with the way he spoke of them and their countries and his policy of separating families which people found cruel. I felt it was presented as a package deal: Wall + separating families + remain in Mexico. Would the opposition to the wall been as strong it was separate from those other things? Dunno.

My guess is a less devisive politician could sell the idea of the Wall and maybe frame it in a different way to make it more palatable to the public.

we've had walls/barriers for years as deterrents - maybe Trump didn't sell it right, but Democrats fought the idea tooth and nail even though we already had barriers/walls and offered nothing better and now we got Biden-vasion by the millions

I reject the whole "separating families" .... like I've said, dragging a kid a thousand miles, with little food/water/shelter/health care with all the sex/human trafficking/drugs reme and the way those kids are treated is so unacceptable to me that I cannot understand anyone wanting this to continue

Thanks for the article link, I will read that a little later when it's less chaotic.

I'd never thought about how millions of illegals can affect our voting system -

In the meantime- is the main beef with our immigration system for the seeking asylum that is being exploited at a higher % vs immigrants coming from other places in the world? When I read yours and others posts it very much feels like a sentiment that the people coming in from the south are largely doing it wrong, and the people from everywhere else are doing it right. I see it as largely both are going through ways we have set up and allow as legit pathways (gotaways aside, I agree that's an issue), and once we let them in they should be treated the same - they aren't illegal they are immigrants here legitimately until proven otherwise in their hearing. I am trying to understand another POV.

No, it's not a 1:1, but I view it similar to the exploitable tax system. Who is more at fault- the people gaming the system within its rules and framework, or the people allowing those rules to remain and not changing them or enforcing them effectively?

sigh

with very few exceptions they're not coming across the southern border for asylum - they're coming here because their home countries are crap

what system do we need in place for those millions and honestly hundreds of millions into billions of people world wide who live in crap countries and would love to come here and live? we cannot handle hundred of millions of poor/poverty people with no skills, speaks no english, has no education .... we simply cannot

we are the most generous country in the world accepting with immigration - and its horribly abused by the literally tens of millions that come here illegally

why even have citizenship anymore when illegals can live here just as easy as citizens?

Yes, but I guess my question is do you think people are largely against a wall and security or were the against all of it? Are you confident the reason the Ds were fighting it was just his wall, or was it largely the other stuff as well?

Not sure what you mean by rejecting that idea. Yes, some send only the kids. Some adults come by themselves, and some come as a family. What was going on is those family units were being broken up by us, which was new.

On that note, we both agree what terrible conditions they face getting here through the traffickers. Part of my issue with Stay in Mexico is we are then knowingly giving them right back to those people and I struggled with that. Also, I read a few articles talk about his policies increasing power to the traffickers, which again struggled with.

Not sure what the sigh is for- I largely agree with you that moat are coming for opportunities, and to escape their country. Our process is how it is, and it's become so underfunded and clogged that it's now really easy to exploit - I guess I place the blame on the US for allowing that, not the people trying to escape and better themselves. We would see the same thing from other places, but we are so Isolated from the rest of the world, those people aren't in the same position to do it the same way.

IMO anybody that we allow in for any of the legit reasons we have provided should be looked at and treated the same. It's up to us to either change the process or improve if that what we decided.

 

[Stealthycat]

Rival drug cartels open fire on each other with .50 cal weapons just miles from Texas border

Two rival Mexican drug cartels opened fire on one another near the Texas border in a recent incident. Drone footage shows vehicles mounted with .50cal machine guns.

www.foxnews.com

Members of two rival Mexican drug cartels opened fire on each other just miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, using .50 cal machine guns mounted on trucks to claim dominance over a popular smuggling route




That's right .... there is SO MUCH MONEY involved in human trafficking to our porous southern border cartels use .50 cal weapons to protect it

and we, the USA, sit back and pretend there isn't a problem

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes, but I guess my question is do you think people are largely against a wall and security or were the against all of it? Are you confident the reason the Ds were fighting it was just his wall, or was it largely the other stuff as well?

I don't know anyone who is against barriers on southern border and want them all gone .... people are against increasing the miles of barrier because they're told its inhumane, its anti-xxxx, there are environmental impacts etc

The powers driving the Democratic party I believe are for 2 reasons ..... #1 is cheap, unskilled, uneducated illegal labor force ad #2 to shift census status and impact elections/Govt

Again ... if Democrats would get out of the way, Republicans would move to seal the southern border IMO. Democrats are solely responsible for the last 5 years on not having a more secure southern border

Not sure what you mean by rejecting that idea. Yes, some send only the kids. Some adults come by themselves, and some come as a family. What was going on is those family units were being broken up by us, which was new.

On that note, we both agree what terrible conditions they face getting here through the traffickers. Part of my issue with Stay in Mexico is we are then knowingly giving them right back to those people and I struggled with that. Also, I read a few articles talk about his policies increasing power to the traffickers, which again struggled with.

its child abuse - can we agree ?

Not sure what the sigh is for- I largely agree with you that moat are coming for opportunities, and to escape their country. Our process is how it is, and it's become so underfunded and clogged that it's now really easy to exploit - I guess I place the blame on the US for allowing that, not the people trying to escape and better themselves. We would see the same thing from other places, but we are so Isolated from the rest of the world, those people aren't in the same position to do it the same way.

IMO anybody that we allow in for any of the legit reasons we have provided should be looked at and treated the same. It's up to us to either change the process or improve if that what we decided.

"asylum" is a new chic word that Democrats started using when Trump was pushing border security. I don't remember it used before when discussing southern border, because everyone knew it had nothing to do with political persecution or religious .... it was simply about people leaving their crap countries to come to the USA


how about this - come to the USA and claim asylum ... and if you're rejected, you pay a $10,000 fine for wasting our judicial/lawyers time. Deal ? 99% of the people wouldn't apply - they know they're not here for asylum

 

[Summer Wheat]

It blows me away that the Dems don`t take control of border security. If they did they would sweep the elections. i really do not know one Dem who does not want a secure border. This should not even be a left-right issue. It is a security issue for everyone.

 

[KarmaPolice]

It blows me away that the Dems don`t take control of border security. If they did they would sweep the elections. i really do not know one Dem who does not want a secure border. This should not even be a left-right issue. It is a security issue for everyone.

I think each party would be smart to latch onto a big wedge issue, especially ones like you said should be non-partisan. Dems would gain traction talking more about the border and real solutions. Rs would help themselves by pushing harder for legal weed and climate change measures. Things like these I scratch my head about how we ended up so divided on politically.

 

[Stealthycat]

It blows me away that the Dems don`t take control of border security. If they did they would sweep the elections. i really do not know one Dem who does not want a secure border. This should not even be a left-right issue. It is a security issue for everyone.

it appears they're doing exactly what they want with border security doesn't it ?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yes, but I guess my question is do you think people are largely against a wall and security or were the against all of it? Are you confident the reason the Ds were fighting it was just his wall, or was it largely the other stuff as well?

I don't know anyone who is against barriers on southern border and want them all gone .... people are against increasing the miles of barrier because they're told its inhumane, its anti-xxxx, there are environmental impacts etc

The powers driving the Democratic party I believe are for 2 reasons ..... #1 is cheap, unskilled, uneducated illegal labor force ad #2 to shift census status and impact elections/Govt

Again ... if Democrats would get out of the way, Republicans would move to seal the southern border IMO. Democrats are solely responsible for the last 5 years on not having a more secure southern border

Not sure what you mean by rejecting that idea. Yes, some send only the kids. Some adults come by themselves, and some come as a family. What was going on is those family units were being broken up by us, which was new.

On that note, we both agree what terrible conditions they face getting here through the traffickers. Part of my issue with Stay in Mexico is we are then knowingly giving them right back to those people and I struggled with that. Also, I read a few articles talk about his policies increasing power to the traffickers, which again struggled with.

its child abuse - can we agree ?

Not sure what the sigh is for- I largely agree with you that moat are coming for opportunities, and to escape their country. Our process is how it is, and it's become so underfunded and clogged that it's now really easy to exploit - I guess I place the blame on the US for allowing that, not the people trying to escape and better themselves. We would see the same thing from other places, but we are so Isolated from the rest of the world, those people aren't in the same position to do it the same way.

IMO anybody that we allow in for any of the legit reasons we have provided should be looked at and treated the same. It's up to us to either change the process or improve if that what we decided.

"asylum" is a new chic word that Democrats started using when Trump was pushing border sec. I don't remember it used before when discussing southern border, because everyone knew it had nothing to do with political persecution or religious .... it was simply about people leaving their crap countries to come to the USA


how about this - come to the USA and claim asylum ... and if you're rejected, you pay a $10,000 fine for wasting our judicial/lawyers time. Deal ? 99% of the people wouldn't apply - they know they're not here for asylum

As to the bolded, especially #1, I will ask directly- do you believe the GOP does not want that and/or do not benefit from that labor? As to #2, I've said why I think you are wrong there.

The next part- I truly don't believe the border will be sealed in the way you would be satisfied with in our lifetime, but I could be wrong and will admit if I was. Again this just stems from the belief I have that neither side wants that because of #1 in the bolded applies equally to the right. You believe the GOP truly wants it sealed.

About last part, my guess was it wasn't a big deal until it was used to combat those policies. It's not like the process of asylum wasn't in place before (feel free to correct that if not true) those years, it's probably just become more obvious in the last decade how broken that process is for a variety of reasons- SM, used more frequently now, etc?

Remember, my plan asked for that process to be quick enough that we have no question they have a legit claim. If that is a rule in place, ideally we don't let them in without their day in court. But because it's a path and we are underfunded in that area, we get what we have - let all who claim in, and give them a date far in the future.

I usually follow the money, see who benefits, and go from there. IMO there are very good reasons that underfunding isn't addressed and why I don't think the border will sealed the way you propose- huge profits the way it is now. Its not only Ds profiting with the current way, and there is no incentive to change.

 

[FairWarning]

Yes, but I guess my question is do you think people are largely against a wall and security or were the against all of it? Are you confident the reason the Ds were fighting it was just his wall, or was it largely the other stuff as well?

I don't know anyone who is against barriers on southern border and want them all gone .... people are against increasing the miles of barrier because they're told its inhumane, its anti-xxxx, there are environmental impacts etc

The powers driving the Democratic party I believe are for 2 reasons ..... #1 is cheap, unskilled, uneducated illegal labor force ad #2 to shift census status and impact elections/Govt

Again ... if Democrats would get out of the way, Republicans would move to seal the southern border IMO. Democrats are solely responsible for the last 5 years on not having a more secure southern border

Not sure what you mean by rejecting that idea. Yes, some send only the kids. Some adults come by themselves, and some come as a family. What was going on is those family units were being broken up by us, which was new.

On that note, we both agree what terrible conditions they face getting here through the traffickers. Part of my issue with Stay in Mexico is we are then knowingly giving them right back to those people and I struggled with that. Also, I read a few articles talk about his policies increasing power to the traffickers, which again struggled with.

its child abuse - can we agree ?

Not sure what the sigh is for- I largely agree with you that moat are coming for opportunities, and to escape their country. Our process is how it is, and it's become so underfunded and clogged that it's now really easy to exploit - I guess I place the blame on the US for allowing that, not the people trying to escape and better themselves. We would see the same thing from other places, but we are so Isolated from the rest of the world, those people aren't in the same position to do it the same way.

IMO anybody that we allow in for any of the legit reasons we have provided should be looked at and treated the same. It's up to us to either change the process or improve if that what we decided.

"asylum" is a new chic word that Democrats started using when Trump was pushing border sec. I don't remember it used before when discussing southern border, because everyone knew it had nothing to do with political persecution or religious .... it was simply about people leaving their crap countries to come to the USA


how about this - come to the USA and claim asylum ... and if you're rejected, you pay a $10,000 fine for wasting our judicial/lawyers time. Deal ? 99% of the people wouldn't apply - they know they're not here for asylum

As to the bolded, especially #1, I will ask directly- do you believe the GOP does not want that and/or do not benefit from that labor? As to #2, I've said why I think you are wrong there.

The next part- I truly don't believe the border will be sealed in the way you would be satisfied with in our lifetime, but I could be wrong and will admit if I was. Again this just stems from the belief I have that neither side wants that because of #1 in the bolded applies equally to the right. You believe the GOP truly wants it sealed.

About last part, my guess was it wasn't a big deal until it was used to combat those policies. It's not like the process of asylum wasn't in place before (feel free to correct that if not true) those years, it's probably just become more obvious in the last decade how broken that process is for a variety of reasons- SM, used more frequently now, etc?

Remember, my plan asked for that process to be quick enough that we have no question they have a legit claim. If that is a rule in place, ideally we don't let them in without their day in court. But because it's a path and we are underfunded in that area, we get what we have - let all who claim in, and give them a date far in the future.

I usually follow the money, see who benefits, and go from there. IMO there are very good reasons that underfunding isn't addressed and why I don't think the border will sealed the way you propose- huge profits the way it is now. Its not only Ds profiting with the current way, and there is no incentive to change.

Since you think the majority of people illegally here are people who overstayed their visas, why would you want to let more in and give them their day in court at a later time? What if 30% dont show up?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yes, but I guess my question is do you think people are largely against a wall and security or were the against all of it? Are you confident the reason the Ds were fighting it was just his wall, or was it largely the other stuff as well?

I don't know anyone who is against barriers on southern border and want them all gone .... people are against increasing the miles of barrier because they're told its inhumane, its anti-xxxx, there are environmental impacts etc

The powers driving the Democratic party I believe are for 2 reasons ..... #1 is cheap, unskilled, uneducated illegal labor force ad #2 to shift census status and impact elections/Govt

Again ... if Democrats would get out of the way, Republicans would move to seal the southern border IMO. Democrats are solely responsible for the last 5 years on not having a more secure southern border

Not sure what you mean by rejecting that idea. Yes, some send only the kids. Some adults come by themselves, and some come as a family. What was going on is those family units were being broken up by us, which was new.

On that note, we both agree what terrible conditions they face getting here through the traffickers. Part of my issue with Stay in Mexico is we are then knowingly giving them right back to those people and I struggled with that. Also, I read a few articles talk about his policies increasing power to the traffickers, which again struggled with.

its child abuse - can we agree ?

Not sure what the sigh is for- I largely agree with you that moat are coming for opportunities, and to escape their country. Our process is how it is, and it's become so underfunded and clogged that it's now really easy to exploit - I guess I place the blame on the US for allowing that, not the people trying to escape and better themselves. We would see the same thing from other places, but we are so Isolated from the rest of the world, those people aren't in the same position to do it the same way.

IMO anybody that we allow in for any of the legit reasons we have provided should be looked at and treated the same. It's up to us to either change the process or improve if that what we decided.

"asylum" is a new chic word that Democrats started using when Trump was pushing border sec. I don't remember it used before when discussing southern border, because everyone knew it had nothing to do with political persecution or religious .... it was simply about people leaving their crap countries to come to the USA


how about this - come to the USA and claim asylum ... and if you're rejected, you pay a $10,000 fine for wasting our judicial/lawyers time. Deal ? 99% of the people wouldn't apply - they know they're not here for asylum

As to the bolded, especially #1, I will ask directly- do you believe the GOP does not want that and/or do not benefit from that labor? As to #2, I've said why I think you are wrong there.

The next part- I truly don't believe the border will be sealed in the way you would be satisfied with in our lifetime, but I could be wrong and will admit if I was. Again this just stems from the belief I have that neither side wants that because of #1 in the bolded applies equally to the right. You believe the GOP truly wants it sealed.

About last part, my guess was it wasn't a big deal until it was used to combat those policies. It's not like the process of asylum wasn't in place before (feel free to correct that if not true) those years, it's probably just become more obvious in the last decade how broken that process is for a variety of reasons- SM, used more frequently now, etc?

Remember, my plan asked for that process to be quick enough that we have no question they have a legit claim. If that is a rule in place, ideally we don't let them in without their day in court. But because it's a path and we are underfunded in that area, we get what we have - let all who claim in, and give them a date far in the future.

I usually follow the money, see who benefits, and go from there. IMO there are very good reasons that underfunding isn't addressed and why I don't think the border will sealed the way you propose- huge profits the way it is now. Its not only Ds profiting with the current way, and there is no incentive to change.

Since you think the majority of people illegally here are people who overstayed their visas, why would you want to let more in and give them their day in court at a later time? What if 30% dont show up?

I wouldn't want them to have their day in court at a later time. If I had a magic wand, we would have the ability to hold and process quickly enough they have their day in court before they enter and are released in the country. Pipe dream, sure but imo if we were serious about it, we would put a ton more effort into processing these people ASAP, not releasing them and hope they show up years later.

 

[Stealthycat]

As to the bolded, especially #1, I will ask directly- do you believe the GOP does not want that and/or do not benefit from that labor? As to #2, I've said why I think you are wrong there.

I think they do to some degree (and more so in the past I imagine) but now, part of their core party platform is getting the border under control. They'd do it if Democrats would let them. right now, its the Democrats using/abusing

The next part- I truly don't believe the border will be sealed in the way you would be satisfied with in our lifetime, but I could be wrong and will admit if I was. Again this just stems from the belief I have that neither side wants that because of #1 in the bolded applies equally to the right. You believe the GOP truly wants it sealed.

About last part, my guess was it wasn't a big deal until it was used to combat those policies. It's not like the process of asylum wasn't in place before (feel free to correct that if not true) those years, it's probably just become more obvious in the last decade how broken that process is for a variety of reasons- SM, used more frequently now, etc?

Remember, my plan asked for that process to be quick enough that we have no question they have a legit claim. If that is a rule in place, ideally we don't let them in without their day in court. But because it's a path and we are underfunded in that area, we get what we have - let all who claim in, and give them a date far in the future.

I usually follow the money, see who benefits, and go from there. IMO there are very good reasons that underfunding isn't addressed and why I don't think the border will sealed the way you propose- huge profits the way it is now. Its not only Ds profiting with the current way, and there is no incentive to change.

If there isn't a sealed border there is no reason for anybody to be a resident/citizen. Lets all just be here, never applying for the draft, never having to have car insurance, paying taxes, living under many other things citizens are bound to and by. Right ?

You cannot have a quick system with Govt and especially with the legal system. Surely you know that? We can't even get a school shooter convicted until its 3-4 years after the crime :(

I disagree, only the Democrats are stopping the secured border right now and the proof is how hard they fought to keep Trump from doing anything and how Biden's policies have spiked millions of illegally here people. its awful

 

[Stealthycat]

Since you think the majority of people illegally here are people who overstayed their visas, why would you want to let more in and give them their day in court at a later time? What if 30% dont show up?

I have never agreed the majority of people illegally here crossing the southern border are overstayed VISA's

 

[Stealthycat]

I wouldn't want them to have their day in court at a later time. If I had a magic wand, we would have the ability to hold and process quickly enough they have their day in court before they enter and are released in the country. Pipe dream, sure but imo if we were serious about it, we would put a ton more effort into processing these people ASAP, not releasing them and hope they show up years later.

and when 20 million more a year show up in your system what, hire 50,000 more judges and 150,000 more lawyers all on the US taxpayers dime?

how about make all the illegals showing up pay their own court costs/fee's ? cash up front - like they pay the cartels to traffick them to the USA southern bordr ?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Appreciate the back and forth today, SC.

It's clear a big difference is just simply the fact that you believe only one side benefits in this system and the other truly wants to stop it.

I honestly don't know why you think only dems run and profit from Big AG, the PIC, and others who benefit from these people.

 

[The Commish]

Ignore words and instead observe actions and its absurdly easy to see neither party wants to do anything meaningful at the border.

 

[FairWarning]

Ignore words and instead observe actions and its absurdly easy to see neither party wants to do anything meaningful at the border.

Biggest losers are the people who live in those areas. Local government can only do so much.

 

[The Commish]

Ignore words and instead observe actions and its absurdly easy to see neither party wants to do anything meaningful at the border.

Biggest losers are the people who live in those areas. Local government can only do so much.

We all lose honestly. Theres absurd amounts of money being spent on the inaction and pretending its meaningful action. Likely way more than it would cost to just fix it. Pawns in this (immigrants and citizens alike) feel the brunt of it for sure.

 

[The Big Donkey]

link

"The White House pressured the Democratic mayor of El Paso, Texas, to not declare a state of emergency over the city’s migrant crisis due to fear it would make President Biden look bad, The Post has learned.

At least three of the El Paso City Council’s eight members have urged Mayor Oscar Leeser to issue an emergency declaration in response to the thousands of migrants who’ve filled the city’s shelters and are being housed in local hotels, sources familiar with the matter said.

But Leeser admitted during a private phone conversation last month that he’d been directed otherwise by the Biden administration, one of the officials told The Post.

“He told me the White House asked him not to,” Councilmember Claudia Rodriguez said..."

"....US Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), whose district covers rural areas and border towns near El Paso, also said he heard similar accounts from other city officials.

“It is a sleight of hand what the administration is doing — pressuring the local government to not issue a declaration of emergency, to say as if everything is going OK,” he said.

Gonzales also alleged that the White House has done “the same thing in other parts of my district,” which have also seen huge numbers of migrants seeking refuge..."

 

[Stealthycat]

CNN article

This powerful photo shows what's happening now at the border | CNN

It's a striking image that reveals one family's struggle and a major change at the US-Mexico border. A Venezuelan father's eyes well up with tears, and his 4-year-old son tries to wipe them away. Here's a look at the bigger picture.

www.cnn.com

not one mention of amnesty ............. hmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[FairWarning]

How long before Biden takes credit for this?

 

[Phil Elliott]

I think there is a very good chance Kamala will take over Potus from Biden in the next two years. Biden is on the edge of having no credibility and minimal mental capacity for Potus. She will then own the border crisis all by herself along with everything else. And then she can explain how it's the top priority of all the priorities that have a top priority and will do nothing about it, but state the border is secure and closed.

 

[The Commish]

I think there is a very good chance Kamala will take over Potus from Biden in the next two years. Biden is on the edge of having no credibility and minimal mental capacity for Potus. She will then own the border crisis all by herself along with everything else. And then she can explain how it's the top priority of all the priorities that have a top priority and will do nothing about it, but state the border is secure and closed.

If recent history is ANY indication, he's not sniffing removal and I dont think he's stepping down. He'd have to die for her to take over.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I think there is a very good chance Kamala will take over Potus from Biden in the next two years. Biden is on the edge of having no credibility and minimal mental capacity for Potus. She will then own the border crisis all by herself along with everything else. And then she can explain how it's the top priority of all the priorities that have a top priority and will do nothing about it, but state the border is secure and closed.

If recent history is ANY indication, he's not sniffing removal and I dont think he's stepping down. He'd have to die for her to take over.

I wasn't a fan of Reagan when he reportedly falling asleep in meetings and Nancy was making the decisions. But he never when into a temporary catatonic state during an interview, as one example.

 

[The Commish]

I think there is a very good chance Kamala will take over Potus from Biden in the next two years. Biden is on the edge of having no credibility and minimal mental capacity for Potus. She will then own the border crisis all by herself along with everything else. And then she can explain how it's the top priority of all the priorities that have a top priority and will do nothing about it, but state the border is secure and closed.

If recent history is ANY indication, he's not sniffing removal and I dont think he's stepping down. He'd have to die for her to take over.

I wasn't a fan of Reagan when he reportedly falling asleep in meetings and Nancy was making the decisions. But he never when into a temporary catatonic state during an interview, as one example.

In this discussion Reagan easily clears the bar as well....no question

 

[Phil Elliott]

I think there is a very good chance Kamala will take over Potus from Biden in the next two years. Biden is on the edge of having no credibility and minimal mental capacity for Potus. She will then own the border crisis all by herself along with everything else. And then she can explain how it's the top priority of all the priorities that have a top priority and will do nothing about it, but state the border is secure and closed.

If recent history is ANY indication, he's not sniffing removal and I dont think he's stepping down. He'd have to die for her to take over.

I wasn't a fan of Reagan when he reportedly falling asleep in meetings and Nancy was making the decisions. But he never when into a temporary catatonic state during an interview, as one example.

In this discussion Reagan easily clears the bar as well....no question

I'll give you that. Still think Kamala will be Potus before 2024 election.

 

[Stealthycat]

Supporting the porous border is supporting human trafficking, sex trafficking, drug trafficking etc

Multiple women rescued from human trafficking scheme after paying to cross southern border into US; 2 arrested

Police in Tampa said multiple women were rescued from human trafficking after paying $60K to be brought across the southern border into the U.S. from Cuba. Two people were arrested.

www.foxnews.com

Multiple women rescued from human trafficking scheme after paying to cross southern border into US; 2 arrested​

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody called it 'one of the worst trafficking cases' she's ever seen after the women were forced into the sex trade to repay their debt​

856 migrants have died at US southern border in 2022, breaking record: CBP​

 

[lod001]

Her ability to spew complete ignorance is top of the line.

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1585323473450115072