Where did I say just a wall will stop everyone? Is a wall essential to helping control mass immigration? Yes. But what's funny is you are for the bill which will include money to build a wall. Why would you be for something that you are on record saying doesn't work? Brilliant.
Just because you can't stick to one side of an argument, doesn't mean that you need to go ad hominem when it is pointed out. Yesterday, walls didn't help against terrorists (your words) but did against migrants. Today, they help against terrorists. If you don't like me pointing out that you are literally taking opposite arguments on the topic from day-to-day, then perhaps you should avoid doing that.
The response wasn't to you. You see, on this board, it shows the screen name of the person quoted. That poster was not named gator95, so my comment wasn't directed at your position but rather the position of that poster. Perhaps you should click on your link.
This is what confuses me most abortions are had by poor single women. Those are mostly going to grow up to be democratic voters. So shouldn’t republicans be in favor of abortions?
We haven't had legislation that allowed anyone who entered undocumented the right to vote at any time in his/her life in nearly 4 decades. Maybe the Rs should focus on why the immigrants wouldn't want to vote for them, instead of fearing giving more people voting access?
Why because orange man God told you so? It’s the most significant reform of immigration in decades, put together by Senate Republicans and per Lindsay Graham far better than anything we can expect with Donald Trump in office. Also liberals oppose it too so that also should make you happy.
I would refer you to post 92. The policies in the new bill are fine until you see that it is at the discretion of the secretary and president as to whether they will enforce.
I think the new bill has several good points in it, but I also believe as you read through it, it allows for a lot of discretion of enforcing limits at the sole discretion of the secretary. This is where I take issue, we have current laws that they are not following so why write a new one that allows that discretion, nothing will change.
Okay, so which provisions, specifically, would help if not at the discretion of the executive branch that won't help because they are? Is your sole objection the discretion from 4,000-5,000 daily entries?
The easiest regulation to state is an asylum seeker must request in the country he arrives first in to before they come to the US or be ineligible to request in the US. Fact Sheet: Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule | Homeland Security (dhs.gov)
Based upon your link, I did not see evidence of a requirement that an asylum seeker must request in the country he arrives first in that they want asylum. Based upon that link, it appears to change the likelihood of success of a case, but I did not see where it was a legal requirement. Can you provide the law that demonstrates that this is a legal requirement? Edit: Upon further research, it appears that we, theoretically, could negotiate such a plan with Mexico, as we have one with Canada, but that does not appear to be currently in place with Mexico.
It could be my reading comprehension, but I pasted a couple excerpt from the link. Overview Under the final rule, noncitizens who cross the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders without authorization after traveling through another country, and without having (1) availed themselves of an existing lawful process, (2) presented at a port of entry at a pre-scheduled time using the CBP One app, or (3) been denied asylum in a third country through which they traveled, are presumed ineligible for asylum unless they meet certain limited exceptions. Exceptions Noncitizens who cross the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders of the United States without authorization after traveling through a third country will be presumed ineligible for asylum unless they, or a member of their family with whom they are traveling, meet one of three exceptions: They were provided authorization to travel to the United States pursuant to a DHS-approved parole process; They used the CBP One app to schedule a time and place to present at a port of entry, or they presented at a port of entry without using the CBP One app and established that it was not possible to access or use the CBP One app due to a language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other ongoing and serious obstacle; or They applied for and were denied asylum in a third country en route to the United States.
The bill has been endorsed by the union representing Border Patrol Agents. It's members are literally on the front line at the border. Also keep in mind that the union endorsed Trump twice. Acting CBP chief, Border Patrol union back Senate border deal | The Hill Border Patrol Union endorses controversial Senate border deal: ‘far better than the status quo’ - Fox News NBPC says the Border Act of 2024 will give Border Patrol agents an authority that they never had in the past, including removing "single adults expeditiously and without a lengthy judicial review, which historically has required the release of these individuals into the interior of the U.S." NBPC believes this will lead to a drop in illegal border crossings and allow agents to focus on detecting and apprehending would-be illegal border crossers who evade apprehension. "While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the status quo, which is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for a quick passage," NBPC said in a statement.