Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Kamala Harris' border crisis. Biden put her in charge.


Recommended Posts

EXCLUSIVE: Fox News confirmed Sunday that Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV) have begun to process and release illegal border crossers who claim asylum without issuing a Notice to Appear (NTA) - allowing them to depart custody without scheduling a court date for a hearing. 

The unprecedented move places the responsibility of seeking an asylum hearing on the migrants through Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or legal assistance.

BORDER PATROL RELEASING ILLEGAL CROSSERS INTO US WITHOUT COURT DATE

 

this should work real well also.  pretty sure at least 2.2% will request a hearing for asylum.   votes man, its all about votes.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, squistion said:

And please, if you claim Democrats want no borders or open borders you need to provide at least one link showing a prominent Democratic legislator has called for that (and you haven't, because you can't). 

This is where the term "de facto" applies.

"describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stoneworker said:

This is where the term "de facto" applies.

"describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

Thank you. It's as if those clamoring for nuance didn't know nuance existed. And then they make stinkfights about it while everyone recognizes the obvious argument at hand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, squistion said:

But I can call them out and ask for links when they make up stuff that is completely false and misleading as is the case here.

Sure, and it means nothing cause everyone see through it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

Lol. 

Look guys we dont support open borders, we just refuse to commit to a number, we wont commit to the rules, and we want amnesty for the peoole here. Oh and we dont want a wall either. 

But other than that dont let them in!

I was unaware I was making policy decisions.

But sure call it open and let everyone in despite that not actually being what I said or the administration’s position.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoBirds said:

:goodposting:

 

How do they even try to defend the ridiculousness of their party on this crisis?:lmao:

I defend from bogus claims of open borders.  And I have clearly stated they screwed the situation up.  

Edited by sho nuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I defend from bogus claims of open borders.  And I have clearly stated they screwed the situation up.  

well, you are right they screwed the situation up.  politics has blurred the line between doing what is right & doing what is right for votes.

this border policy is about votes.  side note or question:  pelosi has a pretty big house.  I thinking she should take a few illegal immigrants in for a year or so until they get their court date.  Make sense?  I mean this is humanitarian, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

Instead of paying for hotels Biden needs to take charge and make the tough decisions. The man is a puppet and I voted for him so I am part of the problem.

Anything he does requires congressional approval or EO. And anything that goes through congress isn't going anywhere with the filibuster. 

So what option do you advocate for - EO or remove the filibuster? 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Who would you deny entry to?

hmmmm.....I haven't thought about it in those terms rather I think about it in terms of who I'd want to be here, so I guess by default, if I give you that list, the rest would be those I'd deny entry to?

I'd start with family units with both parents and all children who are fleeing from their home country for a variety of reasons not necessarily limited to fear of death, fear of government, wanting a better life for the family unit etc.  I'm not a fan of just sending the kids.  It needs to be the family unit IMO.  If one of the parents is dead or completely out of the picture or the reason for the moving in the first place, exceptions can be made.  Overall, if the family can be kept together it's my opinion that should be done.  Then I'd seek those who could better our society via STEM skill sets.  The third desired group would be students seeking to learn and take democratic concepts back to their countries that may struggle with that concept.

I'd also do an analysis of our growth history in terms of population and take a rolling 5 year average to determine how many people to let in each year who qualify.  That number when coupled with our citizen births would be modest increases to our population year over year.  As a citizenry we are not keeping up with deaths just by citizen births and we need to supplement.  Immigrants seem like a good way to do that.  I haven't gone through a huge thought exercise on this since neither party really seems interested in fixing our mess, but those are some of my 10,000 foot level thoughts on it.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reinstall Trumps policies. Problem solved. Like him or not the border was more secure and orderly. The reason the media is not allowed there now is because the crap show we all think it is, is in reality worse.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boots11234 said:

Reinstall Trumps policies. Problem solved. Like him or not the border was more secure and orderly. The reason the media is not allowed there now is because the crap show we all think it is, is in reality worse.   

Migrant apprehensions have been going up every month since April 2020 now, almost a full year before Biden got into office. To pin this all on him and pretend like things were fine under Trump is incredibly dishonest.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/15/migrant-apprehensions-at-u-s-mexico-border-are-surging-again/%3famp=1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

Migrant apprehensions have been going up every month since April 2020 now, almost a full year before Biden got into office. To pin this all on him and pretend like things were fine under Trump is incredibly dishonest.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/15/migrant-apprehensions-at-u-s-mexico-border-are-surging-again/%3famp=1

To even try to spin this as anything to do with Trump is EXTREMELY dishonest.  Own this mess.  Biden should have never said "Come to the border" or whatever it was AND signed the EO's weakening the borders ON HIS FIRST DAY.  KIDS ARE IN OBAMA'S CAGES right now.  Thats why no media has been allowed.  You all would be going bannanas if trump banned the media and please dont say differently.  The best thing to happen to the  Republicans was this last election.  Your team owns this whole mess and will pay midterms.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

To even try to spin this as anything to do with Trump is EXTREMELY dishonest.  Own this mess.  Biden should have never said "Come to the border" or whatever it was AND signed the EO's weakening the borders ON HIS FIRST DAY.  KIDS ARE IN OBAMA'S CAGES right now.  Thats why no media has been allowed.  You all would be going bannanas if trump banned the media and please dont say differently.  The best thing to happen to the  Republicans was this last election.  Your team owns this whole mess and will pay midterms.

Own this mess? I have zero loyalty to the Democratic Party and would love to have someone other than Biden in office for 2024.

I’m well aware Biden has made early mistakes in regards to the border and the cages he had those kids in weren’t any different than Trump did.

Of course he deserves blame for that but that still doesn’t take away from the fact that border migrations had been going up for the last 9 months straight that Trump was in office. This was becoming a problem before Biden got into office and he now has made it worse.

 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

Own this mess? I have zero loyalty to the Democratic Party and would love to have someone other than Biden in office for 2024.

I’m well aware Biden has made early mistakes in regards to the border and the cages he had those kids in weren’t any different than Trump did.

Of course he deserves blame for that but that still doesn’t take away from the fact that border migrations had been going up for the last 9 months straight that Trump was in office. This was becoming a problem before Biden got into office and he now has made it worse.

 

It is true that migrations are seasonal and spike in our Spring months.  How do the year over year monthly comparisons look?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ekbeats said:

It is true that migrations are seasonal and spike in our Spring months.  How do the year over year monthly comparisons look?

the link he provided didn't show just spring spikes, it was showing a steady incline of apprehensions starting last feb. 

Edited by KarmaPolice
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, boots11234 said:

To even try to spin this as anything to do with Trump is EXTREMELY dishonest.  Own this mess.  Biden should have never said "Come to the border" or whatever it was AND signed the EO's weakening the borders ON HIS FIRST DAY.  KIDS ARE IN OBAMA'S CAGES right now.  Thats why no media has been allowed.  You all would be going bannanas if trump banned the media and please dont say differently.  The best thing to happen to the  Republicans was this last election.  Your team owns this whole mess and will pay midterms.

They can’t, they have an excuse for everything. Even this disaster when they vote for a party know Lib to oppose border security and abiding by the laws on immigration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FairWarning said:

They don't count as they are more likely R's.

If this is true,  why aren't Republicans doing everything they can to help them?   

Truth is the vets are getting left behind period.  By both sides.  They get largely ignored after service.  

I think you are better than the statement above.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, boots11234 said:

Reinstall Trumps policies. Problem solved. Like him or not the border was more secure and orderly. The reason the media is not allowed there now is because the crap show we all think it is, is in reality worse.   

That just shifts the problem.  It doesn’t solve it. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, squistion said:

No you didn't. You made a statement that it is a matter of opinion.

And please, if you claim Democrats want no borders or open borders you need to provide at least one link showing a prominent Democratic legislator has called for that (and you haven't, because you can't). 

I even used a question mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ekbeats said:

It is true that migrations are seasonal and spike in our Spring months.  How do the year over year monthly comparisons look?

There actually do appear to be seasonal spikes but nothing too significant (at least according to this chart, it looks like the numbers spike up a tiny bit after every February). As you can see, May 2019 and right now are the worst it’s been in the last 8 or so years.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Commish said:

hmmmm.....I haven't thought about it in those terms rather I think about it in terms of who I'd want to be here, so I guess by default, if I give you that list, the rest would be those I'd deny entry to?

I'd start with family units with both parents and all children who are fleeing from their home country for a variety of reasons not necessarily limited to fear of death, fear of government, wanting a better life for the family unit etc.  I'm not a fan of just sending the kids.  It needs to be the family unit IMO.  If one of the parents is dead or completely out of the picture or the reason for the moving in the first place, exceptions can be made.  Overall, if the family can be kept together it's my opinion that should be done.  Then I'd seek those who could better our society via STEM skill sets.  The third desired group would be students seeking to learn and take democratic concepts back to their countries that may struggle with that concept.

I'd also do an analysis of our growth history in terms of population and take a rolling 5 year average to determine how many people to let in each year who qualify.  That number when coupled with our citizen births would be modest increases to our population year over year.  As a citizenry we are not keeping up with deaths just by citizen births and we need to supplement.  Immigrants seem like a good way to do that.  I haven't gone through a huge thought exercise on this since neither party really seems interested in fixing our mess, but those are some of my 10,000 foot level thoughts on it.

So deny entry to single males and females? I am not saying that is wrong, just trying to find somebody that will actually commit to denying somebody entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see that the Dems have "fixed" the problem at the border!
We need AOC to be screaming that she saw children drinking out of toilets!!

Axios

"Each of eight "pods" in the so-called soft-sided facility has a 260-person occupancy, said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who provided the photos to Axios to raise awareness about the situation. But as of Sunday, he said, one pod held more than 400 unaccompanied male minors."

Edited by Opie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Process these people and let them in, unless they are criminals or health risks.  Give the ones who are already here without documentation  a path to citizenship. 
 

The above has always been my position, going on nearly 30 years now. If either of the two parties ever adopted it, there would be no crisis. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

If this is true,  why aren't Republicans doing everything they can to help them?   

Truth is the vets are getting left behind period.  By both sides.  They get largely ignored after service.  

I think you are better than the statement above.  

Both sides should.  They are treated as disposable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Process these people and let them in, unless they are criminals or health risks.  Give the ones who are already here without documentation  a path to citizenship. 
 

The above has always been my position, going on nearly 30 years now. If either of the two parties ever adopted it, there would be no crisis. 

This would require a big wall...with entry points positioned at strategic points along that wall.
The wall would need to be patrolled in order to keep those criminals or health risks out of the country until they are vetted at those entry points.

Attempts to circumvent the vetting process would need to be made illegal with consequences attached.

If only anyone had thought of this before!

Edited by Opie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Opie said:

Glad to see that the Dems have "fixed" the problem at the border!
We need AOC to be screaming that she saw children drinking out of toilets!!

Axios

"Each of eight "pods" in the so-called soft-sided facility has a 260-person occupancy, said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who provided the photos to Axios to raise awareness about the situation. But as of Sunday, he said, one pod held more than 400 unaccompanied male minors."

Cant they just put them in parking garages? You know, like the national guard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Opie said:

This would require a big wall...with entry points positioned at strategic points along that wall.
The wall would need to be patrolled in order to keep those criminals or health risks out of the country until they are vetted at those entry points.

Attempts to circumvent the vetting process would need to be made illegal with consequences attached.

If only anyone had thought of this before!

I’d be OK with the expense of the wall if you accept the rest of my proposal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

There actually do appear to be seasonal spikes but nothing too significant (at least according to this chart, it looks like the numbers spike up a tiny bit after every February). As you can see, May 2019 and right now are the worst it’s been in the last 8 or so years.

 

 

Interesting that this chart shows ebbs and flows , but nothing getting over 60K until 2019.    At the very least it points to the policies of the last couple years not deterring attempts.    Also found the shift in demographic interesting too - seems to be more and more individuals and fewer families.   Part policies here and part hurricanes and COVID last year making the trip even harder for families.  I also saw that the recent wave has been more from Mexico and less from Central America as well.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Opie said:

If I'm not mistaken, President Trump DID offer a path to citizenship to those already in the country....at that time and AFTER the border was secure.

You are mistaken. He offered that only to Dreamers, which is a small percentage. I want to offer it to everyone who is not a criminal or public health risk. Furthermore I want to allow any who want to come here to do so with the same restriction- in other words,  return to Ellis Island days. 
Agreed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Who should be denied entry?

Lots of people Im sure.  Am I making policy?

Who should be denied to you?  Everyone?  Even just excluding violent criminals...that would make it not open borders...so the whole point is ridiculous to keep claiming that is what we have or what Democrats want.  Its completely contrary to the truth and the lie should stop.

Edited by sho nuff
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’d be OK with the expense of the wall if you accept the rest of my proposal. 

Not sure I would be.  I doubt the wall was a serious policy position from the start...it only kept going because people chanted it and of course somebody loved that type of adoration. (Thanks to Roger Stone...and if someone really thinks we should seriously consider much of anything Stone has done policy wise...Id hope we can think again).

  They have been shown over and over and over to be unreliable and inefficient means of border security.  I think we can do far better and without that expense.

https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-impractical-expensive-ineffective-plan

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You are mistaken. He offered that only to Dreamers, which is a small percentage. I want to offer it to everyone who is not a criminal or public health risk. Furthermore I want to allow any who want to come here to do so with the same restriction- in other words,  return to Ellis Island days. 
Agreed? 

Agreed....

(Those who came in through Ellis Island...did not receive tax-payer assistance)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Opie said:

Agreed....

(Those who came in through Ellis Island...did not receive tax-payer assistance)

They received access to public education. Beyond that they received the same assistance everyone else living in the country did which was much less in those days. That’s a different issue. But I’m glad you agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Commish said:

hmmmm.....I haven't thought about it in those terms rather I think about it in terms of who I'd want to be here, so I guess by default, if I give you that list, the rest would be those I'd deny entry to?

I'd start with family units with both parents and all children who are fleeing from their home country for a variety of reasons not necessarily limited to fear of death, fear of government, wanting a better life for the family unit etc.  I'm not a fan of just sending the kids.  It needs to be the family unit IMO.  If one of the parents is dead or completely out of the picture or the reason for the moving in the first place, exceptions can be made.  Overall, if the family can be kept together it's my opinion that should be done.  Then I'd seek those who could better our society via STEM skill sets.  The third desired group would be students seeking to learn and take democratic concepts back to their countries that may struggle with that concept.

I'd also do an analysis of our growth history in terms of population and take a rolling 5 year average to determine how many people to let in each year who qualify.  That number when coupled with our citizen births would be modest increases to our population year over year.  As a citizenry we are not keeping up with deaths just by citizen births and we need to supplement.  Immigrants seem like a good way to do that.  I haven't gone through a huge thought exercise on this since neither party really seems interested in fixing our mess, but those are some of my 10,000 foot level thoughts on it.

Third group is an interesting example. I know someone we did this with in Burkina Faso. He came over to study at the University of South Carolina before returning to be with his family/work in government. However, after several years he no longer felt safe due to religious persecution. Since the Trump admin made seeking this type of asylum basically impossible to get, he instead was able to get some type of tourist visa to the US and has no plans of going back.  Instead of actually using his degree, he is washing dishes and mowing lawns as he goes through the long process to get legitimized with the help of the Christian community he met while in college here.

Immigration policy was awful under Trump. It's fair to say they made these problems less visible (much like with releasing children from other countries back into Mexico), but they are still there. Everything is worse when you choke off legal paths to asylum seekers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, timschochet said:

They received access to public education. Beyond that they received the same assistance everyone else living in the country did which was much less in those days. That’s a different issue. But I’m glad you agree. 

Immigration Act 1907:
Passed into law in Feb. 1907.

"All idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous; persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; paupers; persons likely to become a public charge; professional beggars; persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living"

On April 17, 1907, an all-time daily high of 11,747 immigrants received is reached; that year, Ellis Island experiences its highest number of immigrants received in a single year, with 1,004,756 arrivals.

Your wish should be granted

Edited by Opie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Desert_Power said:

Third group is an interesting example. I know someone we did this with in Burkina Faso. He came over to study at the University of South Carolina before returning to be with his family/work in government. However, after several years he no longer felt safe due to religious persecution. Since the Trump admin made seeking this type of asylum basically impossible to get, he instead was able to get some type of tourist visa to the US and has no plans of going back.  Instead of actually using his degree, he is washing dishes and mowing lawns as he goes through the long process to get legitimized with the help of the Christian community he met while in college here.

Immigration policy was awful under Trump. It's fair to say they made these problems less visible (much like with releasing children from other countries back into Mexico), but they are still there. Everything is worse when you choke off legal paths to asylum seekers. 

Right...which is why I used the dam example...the problem is the flow of water and being able to manage it.  Just because one cuts off the flow temporarily doesn't mean it's "fixed" it just means it's kicked down the road for someone else to deal with.  Been watching this for the better part of 25 years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

So deny entry to single males and females? I am not saying that is wrong, just trying to find somebody that will actually commit to denying somebody entry.

I gave you a list of my initial priorities.  I think each case should be evaluated.  You want a list of people to keep out?  Terrorists and murderers are a good place to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

That just shifts the problem.  It doesn’t solve it. 
 

To who Mexico?  IDGAF.  We shouldn't be trying to solve the worlds problems, we have enough of our own.  The fact is Trumps policies were effective keeping illegals out or at least slowing them down.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

It almost seems like people are not willing to commit to denying entry to anybody other than violent criminals.

Weird. Where have I heard that?

I'm assuming from millions of people....seems rather logical.  But, this is a complete mischaracterization of my position if this is in response to me.  Plenty of "regular" people would be denied entry once we hit our threshold.  So just one example is those families I mentioned previously would be rejected once we hit a limit for the year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Interesting that this chart shows ebbs and flows , but nothing getting over 60K until 2019.    At the very least it points to the policies of the last couple years not deterring attempts.    Also found the shift in demographic interesting too - seems to be more and more individuals and fewer families.   Part policies here and part hurricanes and COVID last year making the trip even harder for families.  I also saw that the recent wave has been more from Mexico and less from Central America as well.  

 

To be honest with you, I don't think the politics here really have much effect on how many people are trying to migrate over to the US. When you're fleeing a country that is filled with poverty, crime and gang violence, you're going to do whatever you can to get out and try to provide a better life for you and your family. Whether the President of the country you want to migrate to tells you to come or not, you're going to try and do it because the other option is to go back home where your life is a living hell and there is no opportunity for a future.

Edited by Bucsfan5493
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

To be honest with you, I don't think the politics here really have much effect on how many people are trying to migrate over to the US. When you're fleeing a country that is filled with poverty, crime and gang violence, you're going to do whatever you can to get out and try to provide a better life for you and your family. Whether the President of the country you want to migrate to tells you to come or not, you're going to try and do it because the other option is to go back home where your life is a living hell and there is no opportunity for a future.

There's a reason EVERY single President since Clinton has had a flow like this at the beginning of their Presidency :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • NorvilleBarnes changed the title to Kamala Harris' border crisis. Biden put her in charge.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...