345d
@wildgrass saidI didn't suggest "doing nothing". I supported Biden's proposal for increased funding to hire additional Border Patrol agents and hundreds of new Administrative Law Judges to process backlogged asylum claims. I also suggested making asylum easier, reversing the presumption against immigration unless the applicant can prove otherwise and ending the absurd policy that makes those that apply for asylum ineligible for work permits for six months.
You have made some well thought out posts here, arguing that this law would impose some of the strictest border policies that the country has seen in a long time. One can argue that the shut down past a certain number is just a practical measure. We don't have the capacity to deal with that many people at once. Obviously there are many ways that could be dealt with, this is ...[text shortened]... ring for a long time about it, now they get every single thing they want and they ignore it?
Why?
You might disagree with all those positions in favor of the draconian Senate proposal but it is simply untrue that I suggested doing nothing.
345d
Don't you dare try to fix anything, Republicans!
This is the message they're getting from Trump. I've never seen a more dysfunctional political party. It might work just fine as an obstructionist agenda if they're in the minority, but you can't obstruct from the front.
Constantly, they complain about the border. And they're largely right. It's a big problem. This current situation with Lankford writing maybe the most conservative piece of border legislation ever seen, is not a one-off example. It's been tried many times, and every time a Republican tries to solve the problem they all get beaten. The only rational conclusion: Republicans aren't capable of solving it.
Republican leader Mitch McConnell tapped Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, a God-fearing Christian conservative from Oklahoma, to negotiate the deal. A deal was reached. Now conservatives are walking away from the deal for political reasons, and dragging the good name of Lankford through the mud as they go. He’s facing charges of heresy from the right back home and in Washington, and he lost support for his deal with each hour that passed before its text could be released. There is a recurring lesson here for Republican legislators who want to solve problems: Do not try. This is especially potent on immigration, arguably the problem that Republicans believe is most in need of fixing. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham twice lent their efforts to comprehensive immigration reform, in 2007 and 2013, and spent years working to repair their relationship with the right. Sen. Marco Rubio, then a presidential hopeful, put his neck on the line during the 2013 effort, and spent his entire unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign apologizing for it. Do NOT try to solve a problem if you are a Republican senator. The bigger the problem, and the more your constituents say they want it fixed, the further away you should get from it. Shoo, now. Go on, git!
345d
@no1marauder saidSorry I've jumped into the convo again after a bit, I think you wrote something along the lines of "thankfully this bill will never get passed"
I didn't suggest "doing nothing". I supported Biden's proposal for increased funding to hire additional Border Patrol agents and hundreds of new Administrative Law Judges to process backlogged asylum claims. I also suggested making asylum easier, reversing the presumption against immigration unless the applicant can prove otherwise and ending the absurd policy that makes ...[text shortened]... ns in favor of the draconian Senate proposal but it is simply untrue that I suggested doing nothing.
345d
1 edit
@wildgrass saidIt's a bad bill and I'm glad it won't be passed. It will discourage and reduce all immigration when the country would greatly benefit, especially economically, from increasing immigration.
Sorry I've jumped into the convo again after a bit, I think you wrote something along the lines of "thankfully this bill will never get passed"
That Republicans won't pass it for reasons diametrically opposed to mine is irrelevant.
345d
@wildgrass saidLike Joe, you seem unaware that once in the country you can apply for asylum regardless of how you got here. That has been the law since 1980.
your bolded point... "expose thousands of mostly Latin American asylum seekers to abuses..."
Please expand on that point, if you can. Are they not exposed to abuse already in the false hope from coyotes that they can sneak into the country illegally? It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that closing the US-Mexico border to illegal migration is abuse. We have asylum laws, but illegal immigrants are ignoring it by crossing illegally.
345d
@no1marauder saidThis bill will do many of the things that you mentioned to increase funding and support staff at the border. It will make things better, even if it doesn't give you everything you want. This is compromise.
It's a bad bill and I'm glad it won't be passed.
That Republicans won't pass it for reasons diametrically opposed to mine is irrelevant.
345d
@no1marauder saidIs that the best way though? Should we be promoting that as a good option?
Like Joe, you seem unaware that once in the country you can apply for asylum regardless of how you got here. That has been the law since 1980.
There's a lot that can be done, but practical limits for asylum seekers is necessary. Please explain your bolded point about how restricting immigration exposes people to abuse?
345d
@wildgrass saidThe bill would end the policy of giving hearings to asylum seekers who crossed besides official crossing points, end a successful humanitarian program and put an artificial cap on daily entries.
This bill will do many of the things that you mentioned to increase funding and support staff at the border. It will make things better, even if it doesn't give you everything you want. This is compromise.
It's something Lankford admits would never be passed in the Senate except in an election year to help Biden.
That's an insufficient reason to me to reverse long standing policies which encourage beneficial immigration. That the present situation is a bad photo op look to viewers of Fox News doesn't matter to me.
@wildgrass saidWhy don't you be unlike Joe and read the HRW link?
Is that the best way though? Should we be promoting that as a good option?
There's a lot that can be done, but practical limits for asylum seekers is necessary. Please explain your bolded point about how restricting immigration exposes people to abuse?
Apparently it's safer being in INS custody while awaiting a hearing then being in the areas of Northern Mexico.
@no1marauder saidI went to your link but could not find any numbers to reinforce the argument about relative safety (USA vs. Mexico). I was hoping you could explain. You don't appear very confident with that "apparently" response.
Why don't you be unlike Joe and read the HRW link?
Apparently it's safer being in INS custody while awaiting a hearing then being in the areas of Northern Mexico.
It seems hyperbolic to argue that people who are fleeing violence in El Salvador and make it to the relatively safe country of Mexico are being subjected to "abuse" because US immigration is unable to process their asylum application.
Safety is not guaranteed no matter where you end up in the world.
345d
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI agree that immigration is beneficial. I disagree that border crossings outside of official crossing points is beneficial. That hurts everyone involved, including US taxpayers.
The bill would end the policy of giving hearings to asylum seekers who crossed besides official crossing points, end a successful humanitarian program and put an artificial cap on daily entries.
It's something Lankford admits would never be passed in the Senate except in an election year to help Biden.
That's an insufficient reason to me to reverse long standing po ...[text shortened]... tion. That the present situation is a bad photo op look to viewers of Fox News doesn't matter to me.
345d
@wildgrass saidMaybe I should have written "apparently" but it seems plainly obvious that INS detention is safer for the immigrant than leaving them to be preyed above in an area where migrants were recently murdered :
I went to your link but could not find any numbers to reinforce the argument about relative safety (USA vs. Mexico). I was hoping you could explain. You don't appear very confident with that "apparently" response.
It seems hyperbolic to argue that people who are fleeing violence in El Salvador and make it to the relatively safe country of Mexico are being subjected to "a ...[text shortened]... ocess their asylum application.
Safety is not guaranteed no matter where you end up in the world.
"INTERLOCUTOR: Now, Mr. President, on a second topic, I would like to ask you: how is the case of the investigation into the migrants who were murdered in Tamaulipas progressing?"
"It's an area where something similar happened recently: another pickup truck appears with charred bodies inside, in the same area."
PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR
" It's unfortunate to say this, but the record is that migrants are most at risk in the northern border states, particularly Tamaulipas, for all we know."
"In fact, police officers from the state of Tamaulipas have already been detained, there have been dismissals and immigration officials, public servants of migration are also subject to processes, and there will be no impunity."
" Look, the border in Tamaulipas is the most violent area, with the greatest clashes between criminal gangs and also clashes between criminals and police and military, that border strip."
https://www.gob.mx/presidencia/articulos/version-estenografica-conferencia-de-prensa-del-presidente-andres-manuel-lopez-obrador-del-11-de-febrero-de-2021
So yeah, I'm pretty confident with my response based on HRW and the Mexican President.
345d
@wildgrass saidIt's been US law for more than four decades that one can seek asylum once in the United States regardless of how they enter.
I agree that immigration is beneficial. I disagree that border crossings outside of official crossing points is beneficial. That hurts everyone involved, including US taxpayers.
I see no reason to change that merely to help Joe Biden's re-election chances.
Lankford's selling point to fellow Republicans is that this bill is more draconian than anything that would be possible even if Trump wins in November. I'd say that's a good reason for progressives to reject it.
345d
@no1marauder saidIt is hyperbolic to call it "abuse" just because an asylum seeker made it to Mexico but was denied entrance to the US. You can compare crime rates from many different countries, but just because one countries crime rate is higher does not make it abusive.
Maybe I should have written "apparently" but it seems plainly obvious that INS detention is safer for the immigrant than leaving them to be preyed above in an area where migrants were recently murdered :
"INTERLOCUTOR: Now, Mr. President, on a second topic, I would like to ask you: how is the case of the investigation into the migrants who were murdered in Tamaulipas p ...[text shortened]... ro-de-2021
So yeah, I'm pretty confident with my response based on HRW and the Mexican President.
I don't think the anecdotes help your case, as if crime in the US doesn't exist. The deaths you are highlighting in these examples are direct causes of their desire to cross the border illegally. It would not have happened if the border was more secure. If migrants were only allowed to enter legally through checkpoints, all these coyotes would be out of jobs.
Here is AMLO's opinion on which country is safer for migrants:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/13/americas/mexico-us-amlo-intl-latam/index.html
345d
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou use flawed logic here. Just like Republicans, who say they don't want to pass it to help Biden, you don't want to pass it "merely" to help Biden, ignoring the fact that it does more than that, checks some of your boxes for what is needed to fix US immigration policy.
It's been US law for more than four decades that one can seek asylum once in the United States regardless of how they enter.
I see no reason to change that merely to help Joe Biden's re-election chances.
Lankford's selling point to fellow Republicans is that this bill is more draconian than anything that would be possible even if Trump wins in November. I'd say that's a good reason for progressives to reject it.
Similarly it does not matter what Lankford's selling points are. He's not selling it to progressives. It's whats in the bill, which is better for migrants right now than not passing anything.