324d
@no1marauder saidThat's fine. You're wrong though.
This has all been covered, so I don't feel like wasting further time discussing how the bill is hostile to immigration and repeals long standing features of law encouraging it AGAIN.
There were a few decent features in it, but overall it was a bad bill that was pretty much what right wingers have demanded for years. It's fortunate that they weren't willing to take the "W".
No one gets everything they want in a compromise deal. Democrats did what they could to limit possibly harmful effects to immigrants while working to shorten the application process and give more resources to immigration officials. It's a net positive.
At one point you wrote that you don't like it because of Ukraine, but that's not even in there anymore.
324d
@wildgrass saidNo, I didn't say anything about Ukraine when discussing this bill. I don't oppose aid to Ukraine.
That's fine. You're wrong though.
No one gets everything they want in a compromise deal. Democrats did what they could to limit possibly harmful effects to immigrants while working to shorten the application process and give more resources to immigration officials. It's a net positive.
At one point you wrote that you don't like it because of Ukraine, but that's not even in there anymore.
The Democrats can get a better bill next year after they win the Presidency and re-take the House (though they may lose the Senate). This bill is hardly a "net positive" and I know of no organization or group supportive of immigrant rights that agrees with your assessment.
324d
@no1marauder saidThe American immigration council called it a step in the right direction.
No, I didn't say anything about Ukraine when discussing this bill. I don't oppose aid to Ukraine.
The Democrats can get a better bill next year after they win the Presidency and re-take the House (though they may lose the Senate). This bill is hardly a "net positive" and I know of no organization or group supportive of immigrant rights that agrees with your assessment.
Must have been some one else who mentioned Ukraine. Sorry.
324d
@wildgrass saidhttps://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/analysis-senate-border-bill
The American immigration council called it a step in the right direction.
Must have been some one else who mentioned Ukraine. Sorry.
Read in full, it seems to oppose the bill without exactly saying so:
"Overall, the bill represents a serious attempt to acknowledge, and solve, some of the key problems with current border and asylum policy, and to address the federal government’s failure to manage migration in a way that supports American communities and respects humanitarian needs. In particular, it aims to reduce the frequency with which people wait years for a final outcome on their asylum case. However, its positive steps in this direction are smothered by a new “emergency authority” that repeats mistakes made by the Trump and Biden administrations: making protection much less available for those in need, while failing to send a clear message to future arrivals. "
It concludes:
"What we have seen, time and time again, is that adding additional penalties or complications to the process for asylum seekers once they arrive in the U.S. immiserates those asylum seekers without having a lasting impact on overall border arrivals. This is especially true when the process is made longer and less certain, contributing to bottlenecks throughout the system including dangerous border overcrowding.
What is instead needed is a way to resolve these cases quickly and certainly—taking months, not years—without railroading claimants. This bill takes steps in that direction, but overwhelms them with the imposition of an opaque emergency authority, which would undermine any deterrent effect by providing inconsistent outcomes to people attempting to enter the U.S. without warning or rationale.
Efficiency also can’t go so far as to fully sacrifice any meaningful, independent review of decisions. Making a process quicker does not require cutting corners on due process.
The U.S. can’t solve a global displacement crisis just by deporting people to other parts of the world. Cooperation with other countries on migration management to support people in their home countries and in countries they settle in is not a nice-to-have or a long-term goal, it is an essential part of any plan—especially one that expects Mexico and other countries to shoulder the responsibility for taking deportees from other countries. "
"Positive steps" are "smothered" or "overwhelmed" in their view. That doesn't seem like an endorsement.
324d
@wildgrass said"The following statement is from Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council:
The American immigration council called it a step in the right direction.
Must have been some one else who mentioned Ukraine. Sorry.
“The current situation at our southern border is unsustainable, and our immigration system has suffered from decades of inattention and underinvestment. Tackling the problem through a serious bipartisan effort is a great step forward. Unfortunately, while this bill identifies many of the critical issues that need to be addressed to help us more effectively manage our southern border, it is incomplete in some respects and would be unnecessarily harmful in others.
“While the bill contains a series of positive measures, including an overall increase in green cards, increases in government funding to provide attorneys to unaccompanied kids, age-out protections for the kids of parents who are stuck in our years-long employment-based immigration backlogs, and a path to citizenship for our Afghan allies, it is silent when it comes to how to address the plight of Dreamers and others who have been forced to live in the shadows for far too long. And its key proposal for responding to increasing arrivals at the border—summary expulsions of individuals who are seeking humanitarian protections—is an approach that has proven to be a harmful and counterproductive policy under both the Trump and Biden administrations.
“For generations, the United States has been a place of safe haven for people seeking freedom and safety. But in the 21st century, a global displacement crisis is affecting nearly every country in the world. To effectively manage our border in this moment, we need a major shift in thinking and policymaking, abandoning the fantasy of short-term solutionism and acknowledging that only sustained investment over a period of time can realistically address these challenges. We call on Congress and the administration to act to create an immigration system that better reflects our values and needs in the 21st century.”
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/senate-border-bill-step-right-direction-falls-short-guaranteeing-due-process-asylum-seekers
Parsing the language, he says a bipartisan effort is a "great step forward" but that the bill is "unnecessarily harmful in some respects" and its key proposal "summary expulsions of individuals who are seeking humanitarian protections" is a "harmful and counterproductive policy".
Again, doesn't sound like they're for it without significant changes.
320d
1 edit
@AverageJoe1
Hey, you say Rebublicans killed it. that is 100% false. ONE repub killed that bill, Mikey Johnson, Trump's puppet. It came down to ONE Christian Nationalist not a group of republicans and you ignore the fact the bill was BIPARTISAN, I guess pesky details like that go right over your head.
You ignore the fact the bill was not even allowed DEBATE in the house much less a vote. And that is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT due to Trump and Trump alone.
Republicans PLURAL my ass.
320d
@no1marauder saidI mean, parse the language all you want but a step in the right direction is a lot less hyperbolic than your assessment. It certainly isn't being described as a step in the wrong direction.
"The following statement is from Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council:
“The current situation at our southern border is unsustainable, and our immigration system has suffered from decades of inattention and underinvestment. Tackling the problem through a serious bipartisan effort is a great step forward. Unfortunately, while this bil ...[text shortened]... counterproductive policy".
Again, doesn't sound like they're for it without significant changes.
Also, much of the criticism is about what's not in it. That's fair to bring up, but in reality immigrant advocates aren't going to get everything they want.
320d
@wildgrass
We WOULD have had 12 BILLION for the border if Trump had not killed the bill where good old Mikey, Trump's puppet, killed it because Trump wanted it killed because it might show kudo's to Biden and he can't have that.
320d
@sonhouse saidIt's not about kudos to Biden. The Mexicans jumping the border is media gold for Republicans. They need the froth and the fury to win elections. Solving problems is bad for them.
@wildgrass
We WOULD have had 12 BILLION for the border if Trump had not killed the bill where good old Mikey, Trump's puppet, killed it because Trump wanted it killed because it might show kudo's to Biden and he can't have that.
We need maybe $25 to start a small business and buy a podium and a chain link fence, then charge Republicans to give speeches there while we climb the fence.
320d
@wildgrass
No it is not about kudo's to Biden, it is what Trump THOUGHT would be kudo's to Biden and that he could not have so he killed the bipartisan bill and his puppet Mikey won't even allow it to be debated much less voted yea or nay.
319d
@sonhouse saidIt is clear that they are not serious people. They play games with their voters, under the guise of games being played by "they" on the other side.
@wildgrass
No it is not about kudo's to Biden, it is what Trump THOUGHT would be kudo's to Biden and that he could not have so he killed the bipartisan bill and his puppet Mikey won't even allow it to be debated much less voted yea or nay.
Cut through all the propaganda and you see that the GOP has no intention of addressing immigration reform.