Dems on Illegal Immigration
- Thread starter mohoosier
- Start date
These quotes from Democrats illustrate how speaking in broad high sounding phrases about immigration is a poor substitute for specific legislation.
Legislation written by Congress which clearly spells out how each executive branch must deal with immigration.
Last edited:
Or simply enforce our borders? This is not rocket science.
The legislation on the books simply don't offer enough specific guidelines.
Thus, for one example, a Biden or Trump administration can treat a person born in the U.S. with undocumented parents differently.
The sticking point on illegal immigration has long been the border -- specifically, securing it so as to make it very difficult for somebody to come here unlawfully. And I think that also extends to how we deal with those who are able to make it through in violation of the law.
The Gang of 8 effort in 2013 was the closest our policymakers came to a wholesale reform of immigration laws. And I still maintain that the reason it failed is a fundamental disagreement over the border.
The quick version is this: there were 4 Rs and 4 Ds in the Senate who came together to hatch out an immigration reform bill that could pass a Democratic Senate (led by Harry Reid) and a Republican House (led by John Boehner). One of those Rs was current Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
When the effort began, Rubio assured wary conservatives that any bill he signed on to would include a "border trigger." That is: a provision that required that we meet certain benchmarks in border security prior to any of the other provisions (which were mostly related to illegal immigrants already here and their families) kicked in.
This language was originally on the table in the G8 deliberations. But it didn't survive them. The bill brought to the floor did not have the "border trigger" in it. Sen. Cornyn proposed an amendment to add it back in. But this amendment was tabled by a vote of 54-43.
The bill, without the triggers, went on to pass the Senate (and Rubio voted for it, which was disastrous for his standing with conservatives). And it didn't even so much as get a vote in the House.
I think an argument could be made that, had the Cornyn amendment passed, and the Gang of 8 bill became law with the border trigger in place, that Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee in 2016. Nobody can say for sure, of course. But illegal immigration has always been the biggest wind in his mainsail.
Craze, thank you for reminding us about the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Act of 2013 which passed the Senate 68-32 but died in the Republican controlled House.
IMO the political divisiveness has grown worse since 2013 making a comprehensive piece of legislation which is required today regarding immigration to be extremely unlikely.
I'm not sure I fully share your diagnosis of this, hoot.
Yes, there is political divisiveness. And, yes, it has only grown since 2013.
But, as far as immigration policy is concerned, the sticking point is still the border. It was true in 2013 and it was true last year with the bill that Sen. Lankford worked with Democrats on.
The general view on the reason that bill died is that Trump killed it. And there's some truth to that. Speaker Johnson relayed a conversation he had with Trump about it -- where he said that Trump's advice was that they shouldn't pass any bill that doesn't give them everything they want.
Well....what was the major objection to it? It had a daily tolerance of 5K encounters "between Ports of Entry" (as in, people entering the country other than a place where they're supposed to) before it mandated certain measures to effectively close the border.
I have to ask: if the government can institute these measures upon hitting a running daily average of 5,000 encounters, why couldn't they just institute those measures all the time? Why is that number any higher than zero?
I think we all know why.
Generally speaking, Trump and the GOP have used issues involving immigration to gain support for themselves more effectively than Biden and the Democrats. Election results prove this.
So it can be said Biden has been a political failure when it comes to immigration.
I agree. And my general view on Biden's failing on immigration is that his MO when he took office was "Let's erase everything we can that has Trump's fingerprints on it."
Unfortunately, that included some pretty sensible and effective immigration policies. And all hell broke loose at the border. He eventually tried to get this all turned around once he realized how damaging it had been to him politically. But it was too little, too late.
Craze, this piece argues the "5,000 encounters" argument put forth by Trump and Johnson is a misrepresentation of what the proposed bill would have done.
Instead according to the article, the following would have happened...
Under the new immigration bill, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure.
All I know for sure is the long overdue Congressional action required in respect to immigration was doomed to failure when brought up in a presidential election year.
I'm not following where the misrepresentation is.
My question is this: why is this number not zero? Why should our border policy have any tolerance for anybody who is caught trying to enter the country between Ports of Entry?
If they have grounds to claim asylum, they can make that claim there.
Again, the sticking point on immigration reform has always been the border -- specifically, the unwillingness of many lawmakers of both parties who are just simply unwilling to do anything that might close the flow of people who are entering the country somewhere other than where they're supposed to.
If lawmakers would've allowed for the border triggers (the headline of which was a 90% apprehension rate) in the 2013 bill, I think it would've become law. It would've been a very workable compromise between those who want the border secured and those who want reforms like a pathway to citizenship for people who are already here.
It seems to me like both of these things could and should be possible. But it would require both sides to relent on what the other side of the debate wants.
Bill must have inhaled, he had to be wacked out high to marry Hillary.
Craze, here is a good explanation of why asylum seekers and others don't use ports of entry. The reasons are understandable.
Nevertheless, accepting only immigrants for processing who appear at ports of entry while at the same time somehow preventing entry elsewhere certainly does have merit. Merit from the standpoint of simplifying the process.
Sheinbaum mouthing off now as well. Nicaragua wants a conference of the poors to determine how they will respond to Trump.
When did Mexico and these South and Central American countries get so uppity?
When did Mexico and these South and Central American countries get so uppity?
Thanks for the link.
The problems legitimate asylees have crossing at ports of entry - such as being obstructed by Mexican officials - should be addressed some other way than just having our policy tolerate them coming in some other way…such that it puts all kinds of burdens on us.
We have plenty of leverage we could use against Mexico on this. In fact, that’s how we got “Remain in Mexico” to begin with. Mexico agreed to those terms.
But let’s remember that the percentage of people crossing our border unlawfully who end up qualifying for asylum is low. Part of this is due to our own capacity to keep up. We’re overwhelmed. But part of it is also due to bogus claims.
Let’s look at some data. Here are affirmative claims from 2021-2023:
Here are defensive claims:
And here are grants:
I don’t know what percentage of people who file an asylum claim end up having it granted at some point. Nor do I know what percentage even show back up for their hearings.
But I do get the sense that asylum is (a) being badly abused by false claims, and (b) is also being used as a distraction by people who really don’t want the border secured.
And, yes, there are people who really don’t want the border secured.
'Nobody gets a free pass': Immigration officers operating with new sense of mission
A week into Donald Trump’s second presidency and his efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, federal officers are operating with a new sense of mission.
www.pbs.org
"The worst go first" is a good slogan:
A week into Donald Trump’s second presidency and his efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, federal officers are operating with a new sense of mission, knowing that “nobody gets a free pass anymore.”
A dozen officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement gathered before dawn Monday in a Maryland parking lot, then fanned out to the Washington suburbs to find their targets: someone wanted in El Salvador for homicide, a person convicted of armed robbery, a migrant found guilty of possessing child sexual abuse material and another with drug and gun convictions. All were in the country illegally.
“The worst go first,” Matt Elliston, director of ICE’s Baltimore field office, said of the agency’s enforcement priorities.
The Associated Press accompanied the officers, who offered a glimpse of how their work has changed under a White House intent on deporting large numbers of immigrants living in the U.S. without permission.
People considered public safety and national security threats are still the top priority, Elliston said.
That is no different from the Biden administration, but a big change has already taken hold: Under Trump, officers can now arrest people without legal status if they run across them while looking for migrants targeted for removal. Under Joe Biden, such “collateral arrests” were banned.
“We’re looking for those public safety, national security cases. The big difference being, nobody has a free pass anymore,” Elliston said.
Usually 40-50% of people are granted asylum.Thanks for the link.
The problems legitimate asylees have crossing at ports of entry - such as being obstructed by Mexican officials - should be addressed some other way than just having our policy tolerate them coming in some other way…such that it puts all kinds of burdens on us.
We have plenty of leverage we could use against Mexico on this. In fact, that’s how we got “Remain in Mexico” to begin with. Mexico agreed to those terms.
But let’s remember that the percentage of people crossing our border unlawfully who end up qualifying for asylum is low. Part of this is due to our own capacity to keep up. We’re overwhelmed. But part of it is also due to bogus claims.
Let’s look at some data. Here are affirmative claims from 2021-2023:
Here are defensive claims:
And here are grants:
I don’t know what percentage of people who file an asylum claim end up having it granted at some point. Nor do I know what percentage even show back up for their hearings.
But I do get the sense that asylum is (a) being badly abused by false claims, and (b) is also being used as a distraction by people who really don’t want the border secured.
And, yes, there are people who really don’t want the border secured.
This is because
A. Asylum officers are a fox in the hen house. Their “screenings” are a joke. Attracts the leftest of the leftists in government.
B. Democratically appointed immigration judges don’t want to deny claims
C. Non profit legal entities coach the asylum seeker through the process
Key is to pre-empt people making asylum claims in the first place until Trump can clean house as USCIS and to keep winning elections so we don’t get more activist immigration judges.
One more presser and he’ll eclipse Biden’s number over four years
Now the mainstream press actually has a good reason to hate Trump...
After four years of basically taking the day off every day but one each month (and just using the DNC talking points as news stories), they now now have to keep up with the Real news cycle 24/7...
They actually have to compete for the breaking story again... I'd be sh-tty too if someone rudely aroused me from basically a deep slumber like "the" Donald has done to them...😉🤣
I am for legal immigration.
MAGA says they are for legal immigration, while doing things contrary to that, like demonizing legal Haitian immigrants in Springfield OH who were actively recruited there to fill a needed worker base, accusing them of eating cats and dogs and wanting them deported
MAGA says they are for legal immigration, while doing things contrary to that, like demonizing legal Haitian immigrants in Springfield OH who were actively recruited there to fill a needed worker base, accusing them of eating cats and dogs and wanting them deported
