The cowering republicans

All of that sounds correct. Although, I'd want to see a source and the context on the last number (deportation orders).

 

I am for robust immigration. But there has to be some rhyme or reason to it and it has to be controlled and deliberate. What we have now is a giant cluster.

 

Asylum in America, by the Numbers

At the very end of article.

So are current process is a couple of million come in 25,000 get approved. Would you agree that is a badly broken process? I don’t think hiring more judges is going to make much of a dent - when the whole process is broken.

 

Yes. The process is very broken. You need to build an infrastructure to process claims faster. And I'd even accept placing limitations on people asking for asylum if we're making rational policy choices elsewhere and getting something in return that isn't just punitive and harmful.

But it's a bit more complex than you have to ask at a port of entry before you enter the country or else. Keep in mind that would prevent a person who legally entered the country from being able to later ask for asylum. (Additionally, think of a situation where a person was literally fleeing the cartels or the Mexican police/military and couldn't make it to a port of entry safely.)

 

I’m confused. It seems like you are saying some of these proposals might not be terrible?

I’m not against making reasonable accommodations for extreme circumstances. I would think reasonable people could come up with some rules/guidelines.

The issue is the world is a dangerous place. A billion in poverty. Billions living in oppressive governments or third world hell holes where their life is in danger. We can’t fix that.

The question becomes people coming from south or Central America, they often make their way through multiple countries. Are none of those comparatively safer? If people are leaving because their life is in danger, is there not some other country south of us where their life won’t be in danger?

If the answer is no, all countries south of us are unacceptably dangerous to live, we have a bigger problem.

On an individual level I have great sympathy for these people and bear them no ill will. I am glad we can help many. But there has to be a limit and some sort of logical controlled process.

I don’t think hiring 25 times more judges, if that were even possible, is going to fix things in itself.

 

It's hard to say everything in the bill is terrible without the bill's text being released. I'm saying that the bill as a whole is bad policy and a bad deal for Democrats. That doesn't mean every single part of it is.

The standard isn't safer, though. It's safe. If you have a 90% chance of being killed in your apartment and I move you to the apartment next door where you have a 80% chance of being killed, that's comparatively safer, but it's still not remotely safe. (Plus, these countries have to have an effective asylum system, and many don't.)

Let's say there's a controlled process. What is the limit? We agree that we can't accept every person in the world. But could we accept one million people per year? How about 100,000? Personally, I think we have a lot more capacity than some folks are willing to admit. The objections come more from a place of fear and a lack of understanding than anything imo.

 

So it seems like the issue isn’t so much that you dislike the specifics, but that the border has been de-linked to dreamers and path to citizenship, which are arguably different issues. You prefer to be able to hold the country hostage with 3 million immigrants to pressure progress on dreamers and path to citizenship.

This is just the other side of the same coin as Trump/republicans blocking the current deal because progress takes away the issue as a political wedge - for both sides. The problem is we’ve been going at this 15-20 years.

For the record I also support legislation for dreamers and some sort of path to citizenship. But they are political non starters right now. If democrats can win congress back with significant majorities then they can pursue it.

The problem with this both sides holding onto the wedge issue paradigm is it is now failing for Democrats. The border has gotten so bad that many moderate and independents feel like the Democrats are completely feckless on this issue. Even the assumption that pro illegal immigration rhetoric will help attract Hispanics is now falling apart. Turns out established Hispanics also don’t like the chaos of an overrunning border. I suspect this is why Biden is pivoting. The border is a noose around his neck.

So by your standard all of central and South America is unsafe so we need to house anybody and everybody in all those countries? Of course that is not your position, but in reality it kind of is.

So if China decided to start shipping out its 12 million Uyghurs to the US, are we obligated to assimilate them all? What about much of Afghanistan. Or Iranians. Or Palestinians. Somolians. Let them all in?

A million seems doable. The 5,000 per day threshold in the proposal would be 1.8 million per year - not exactly stingy (I don’t think that’s exactly how the limits work, but just for illustration purposes).

 

No. Not at all. I explained above why I do not like policies that are at the center of the bill. The bill will not fix the system. In fact, the policies may well make things worse.

This thread is about the Republicans cowering, but it could be just as much about the Democrats doing the same. Biden is pivoting because Democratic leadership, including Biden, tend be craven. Rather than taking on the fight and trying to persuade people, they run away from it.

That's not what I said. I said that you can't offload our asylum responsibilities onto those countries. That's a wholly separate issue from whether a person qualifies for asylum.

Under asylum law, yes, the Uyghurs who suffered religious persecution would have valid claims. Why not let them in? And I'm not sure what you mean by "assimilate them all." America is a melting pot with different cultures, dialects, etc. It makes this country great.

I don't think most of the Iranians are being persecuted or are interested in leaving their homes. But yeah, if Iranians who are being persecuted make it to America, I'd accept them.

If there's a >4,000 per day average over a week, they can basically shut down the border indefinitely. One of the many bad parts of this bill.

 

I think formalizing Trump's immigration policy without any significant concession from Republicans is the very definition of completely folding actually. Bipartisanship is easy when you concede the debate completely lol. The only thing Dems seem to want from this is for the issue to go away, which it wont. They certainly dont want to stake out a position of their own or policy it seems.

 

What message does it send when you are like "Trump and Republicans are a threat to democracy but also, we passed their immigration plan in a bipartisan deal." I mean, I think you can see how a lot of people might think what is the point of voting if we get Trump's policies anyways and Democrats are willing to work with people apparently bent on installing a dictator and making them appear competent at governing.

 

The fascinating thing for me is seeing the democrats stay mad at their politicians for giving in, when the GOP wouldn't even accept the defeat. If the GOP doesn't accept the deal, the democrats still lose. But the Republican voters won't punish their politicians, because they are more interested in owning da libs than in getting what they say they want.

 

I don’t doubt we need more judges. But if there are 2 million coming in, 800k applying for asylum and we are processing 60,000 a year, give or take, there is no way we can hire enough judges to accommodate that.

 

At this point we are talking past each other. I appreciate the conversation though.

 

I agree 100% but all bills can be passed now with so much garbage attached it's hard to figure out what the original purpose of the legislation is.
Funding Ukraine should be an American imperative for both parties.

 

Ok the bill is out

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy...leased-after-months-of-talks-26a66211?mod=mhp

For all of those chomping at the bit to read it here it is.

https://www.appropriations.senate.g..._security_supplemental_section-by-section.pdf


On the spending side, the bill will provide about $118 billion overall in funds for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as well as for U.S. border changes and humanitarian aid in war zones. About half—around $60 billion—is related to Ukraine, with $14.1 billion for Israel security assistance and about $20 billion to implement the new border policies.

At the border, the bill sets up a new process under which migrants are rapidly processed, so large numbers are no longer released into the U.S. with court dates years into the future. Migrants will either be detained or released with monitoring devices, such as ankle bracelets, and given an initial screening interview within 90 days. The standard migrants must clear to pass that interview has been tightened. For example, a migrant must prove that they couldn’t first safely relocate somewhere else in their home country to be eligible for asylum.

Those who don’t pass the new, heightened screening can be immediately deported. Those who do pass should receive a final decision within another 90 days. Still, those windows are targets rather than hard deadlines, and migrants won’t be deported if the process drags on.

In addition, the bill sets up a temporary new authority modeled after Title 42, the Trump pandemic-era policy that allowed the government to turn away migrants without needing to consider their asylum claims. Under that new power, which is authorized for three years, the government can “shut down” the border to asylum seekers if crossings surpass a daily average of 4,000 a day for at least seven days—roughly half the daily crossings seen in recent months. The shutdown becomes mandatory at 5,000 a day. The idea is to ensure the government’s detention capacity doesn’t get overwhelmed when illegal crossings climb too high. The border then couldn’t reopen until crossings fall to under 75% of the trigger point.

 

I agree with almost all of this. Regardless of what many here might think of me I'm not against immigration. But the levels of immigration currently are levels the U.S. can not handle from both an infrastructure standpoint (housing, schools, emergency services, medical services, heck even traffic and roads) as well as from a greater society stand point.

The asylum system has been badly abused to the point of largely being broken. You are right that billions live in poverty and billions live under oppressive governments. Billions live in third world hell holes. As sad as that is living in a third world hell hole isn't a valid reason for asylum.

People forget that asylum was meant for specific persecution. Persecution that is typically based off someone's political views (perhaps they support the opposition of the leader/party in power such as Cubans fleeing Castro), religion (biggest example of course being Jewish people escaping the Nazi's in Europe in World War II), race or sex. A country being a third world hell hole is sad but does not meet the standard for asylum.

Traditional asylum rules have always been that you seek a stable area in your country first and if that's not possible then you seek the first country near yours with a stable government. The argument many of us here make is that these immigrants are bypassing stable countries to get to the U.S.

Utilizing that standard the vast majority of immigrants from South America should be going to Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile.

Utilizing that standard the vast majority of immigrants from Central America should be going to Mexico and Costa Rica.

So why are these immigrants bypassing these countries to go to the U.S.? Why are these immigrants in South American not going to Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile? Why are these immigrants in Central America not seeking asylum in closer countries like Costa Rica and Mexico? Why are they literally walking through a stable country like Mexico to make the dangerous trek to the U.S.?

Why are they bypassing countries that culturally are far more like their own than the U.S.? Why are they bypassing countries where there wouldn't be a language barrier (or as much of a language barrier) and where assimilation into the culture would be much easier? Never mind this is a generally accepted asylum rule.

By not following these rules you are essentially saying the U.S. has to essentially support the vast majority of Central America and South America. That's simply not possible without destroying our own country and our own economy in the process.

We need to get back to more traditional asylum rules. If your country is reasonably safe (though maybe a third world hell hole), then you apply for asylum in your home country at the Embassy of the closet country with a stable government. Only when you are approved can you come to that country. If you are facing imminent political, religious, racial or sexual discrimination and abuse in your home country and it's not safe to stay there, you apply for asylum in the closet country with a stable government where you are away from the danger of your home country.

Those who do come to the border here have to stay in border facilities until they have at least some sort of initial hearing. If they have little to no criminal history, pass a background check and the initial hearing indicates there is a justifiable reason for asylum (and a reason they did not seek asylum in the closet country with a stable government) only then are they able to proceed into the country. I understand it would cost significant resources to make that happen but this is one case I'm okay with more government spending.

The Federal Government has sadly become much bigger than it ever should have been. But one thing that has never been doubted is that border and immigration security has always been one of the responsibilities for the federal government. The federal government needs to focus on these steps to solve the broken asylum and immigration system. And that is even if resources have to be reallocated from other government functions such as overseas military bases and operations and various social services.

 

What are the odds that if Trump wins the WH in November that a bill with the same language as the one he is trashing today will be wholeheartedly supported? Again, they don't want to solve it, they just want to use it as a cudgel.

 

Ah, so the "shut down the border" is really only referring to immigrants and not everything. That makes a lot more sense.

Pass it.