View Full Version : Can we just keep Austin?
gimmethesimplelife
2-4-24, 7:20pm
What do you make of Governor Abbott's refusal to comply with Federal law at the border? Is it really that far out there to think succession may end out on the table? Such would not break my heart - other than the loss of Austin. Rob
The Feds aren't doing shit. Can't really blame TX for what they're doing when they're essentially being invaded.
Now I'd be happy to see California gone.
What do you make of Governor Abbott's refusal to comply with Federal law at the border?
It's a shame that the Federal Government would purposely put any state into that situation.
These guys (both sides) have had years to fix this issue but they don't. I wonder why?? Texas has been threatening succession for years. Bleecchh!!
Texas gets a huge amount of Federal aid. I seriously doubt they would want to get cut off and think the talk is just bluster. The loss of electoral votes could have some positive effects on politics, though. I'm all for state's rights, even when it comes to who's insurrectionist's names appear on ballots, but the disrespect for the Supreme Court of the nation is a little disturbing.
It's a shame that the Federal Government would purposely put any state into that situation.
Indeed. I can't imagine the "logic" that went into the republicans in congress deciding not to do anything about it now that they have been told by their dear leader that he wants this to remain a problem so that he can campaign on it.
Texas gets a huge amount of Federal aid. I seriously doubt they would want to get cut off and think the talk is just bluster.
That's an interesting bit of speculation. I wonder how whatever Federal aid received stacks up against revenue the Feds receive from Texas and its citizens?
The loss of electoral votes could have some positive effects on politics, though. If those so inclined to think that way would simply ask, I'm sure the current administration and it's bureaucratic handlers might simply expel pesky red states for such nebulous offenses as failure to enforce approved groupthink among its subjects or perhaps the crime of allowing free expression resulting in insufficient subservience.
Indeed. I can't imagine the "logic" that went into the republicans in congress deciding not to do anything about it now that they have been told by their dear leader that he wants this to remain a problem so that he can campaign on it.
I think the "logic" includes the fact that there are already laws to deal with the problem if that were a government priority, so it would seem illogical to provide additional funds to make not following the law profitable to everyone but the taxpayer.
I think the "logic" includes the fact that there are already laws to deal with the problem if that were a government priority, so it would seem illogical to provide additional funds to make not following the law profitable to everyone but the taxpayer.
Which laws are not being followed?
Which laws are not being followed?
I think the most significant one is the requirement for asylum seekers to apply for asylum at the nearest country to the country they are seeking to escape (although that may be more of an international principle rather than a US law), as well as the requirement that asylum seekers must enter the country at approved international ports of entry. Neither of those requirements are being enforced.
There are also restrictions on those seeking asylum for purely economic reasons although current estimates reveal that something over 80% of the millions of illegal immigrants already released into the United States should have been denied on the basis of that requirement alone.
I think the most significant one is the requirement for asylum seekers to apply for asylum at the nearest country to the country they are seeking to escape (although that may be more of an international principle rather than a US law), as well as the requirement that asylum seekers must enter the country at approved international ports of entry. Neither of those requirements are being enforced.
There are also restrictions on those seeking asylum for purely economic reasons although current estimates reveal that something over 80% of the millions of illegal immigrants already released into the United States should have been denied on the basis of that requirement alone.
How many immigrants have been granted asylum based on economic reasons during the Biden administration? And how does that compare to previous administrations?
At the absolute bare minimum, the feds need to be stepping up with funds to help the states deal with the influx. They’ve not done squat, as far as I can tell. NYC was reducing the police budget to divert funds to deal with the influx.
That's an interesting bit of speculation. I wonder how whatever Federal aid received stacks up against revenue the Feds receive from Texas and its citizens?
That's a good question and beyond my ability to answer. My brief google search says that Texas is among the highest state for receiving federal aid and gets about 18% of their budget from the feds. They got many billions from Biden's Infrastructure and Jobs Act. I couldn't even start to guess how much they receive in oil and gas subsidies, but it's probably very big. Of course they would no longer have to contribute to the national defense, homeland security, social security, and Medicare, so maybe it would all even out. Or maybe not.
They'd probably still need some form of the Texas Rangers to protect their northern borders from undocumented blue state invaders.
If those so inclined to think that way would simply ask, I'm sure the current administration and it's bureaucratic handlers might simply expel pesky red states for such nebulous offenses as failure to enforce approved groupthink among its subjects or perhaps the crime of allowing free expression resulting in insufficient subservience.
Realistically, I don't think the electoral votes would ever become so fluid, but I'd favor the elimination of the electoral college anyway if it were up to wishes and speculation. If anything, I'd see the red authoritarian regimes the most likely to manipulate the electoral votes. They've already tried to manipulate electoral votes, as in 1/6.
How many immigrants have been granted asylum based on economic reasons during the Biden administration? And how does that compare to previous administrations?
I have no idea. As I understand it, the 8 million or so migrants already processed at the border during the Biden Administration are given court dates to review their status before being granted unrestricted access to the United States. I believe those court dates are now approaching 10 years into the future so it may be quite some time before we know how many of the individuals who bother to show up for those court appearances actually qualify.
ToomuchStuff
2-5-24, 5:54pm
Chemo has started so I haven't been watching the news much.
Let me ask, did the supreme court just rule on the legality of who is allowed to control the boarder, or did they go into the right and responsibility of it?
It's slightly complicated. This is a good explanation.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/22/texas-border-supreme-court-immigration/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20on,deploye d%20miles%20of%20concertina%20wire.
Forgive me, but it's "secession" and "border." Thank you.
Good call, Kay! Success it is not...
Forgive me, but it's "secession" and "border." Thank you.
Good call, Kay! Success it is not...
LOL, I believe the OP would consider secession a huge success if it guaranteed a progressive succession for the remaining nation. He's looking at the end game. ;)
LOL, I believe the OP would consider secession a huge success if it guaranteed a progressive succession for the remaining nation. He's looking at the end game. ;)
No need for the magatexans to secede. Time will take care of the progressive succession of the nation. Unless trump succeeds (not secedes) when he makes his second coup attempt.
I have no idea. As I understand it, the 8 million or so migrants already processed at the border during the Biden Administration are given court dates to review their status before being granted unrestricted access to the United States. I believe those court dates are now approaching 10 years into the future so it may be quite some time before we know how many of the individuals who bother to show up for those court appearances actually qualify.
Ok. I had been under the impression that no one, or at least extremely few, people were granted asylum for economic reasons. I thought maybe I was mistaken based on your earlier post but apparently I wasn’t.
It’s remarkable that the Republican Party politicians are so desperate for trump’s support that the leader of the House of Representatives refuses to support a bipartisan border bill that will potentially shut down the border completely for 270 days in the first year. Before the maga insanity started in 2016 this would have been a Republican politician wet dream of an immigration bill. But now it just confirms that the magas literally have no interest in governing. They’d much rather just do their sad, tired perforation theatre BS for their base while the rest of us look on and ask ‘what the eff is wrong with that clown car of a political party? Why are they derailing an immigration bill that has 90% of everything they want?’
The speaker is calling it dead on arrival. Every news I've see or heard says this is a result of Trump trying to leverage the election in his favor. Before Trump started pedaling his influence it seems like the Republicans were mostly on board with things. This is a huge missed opportunity and hardly in the interest of the nation. Maybe Alan can explain why this isn't the case.
Maybe Alan can explain why this isn't the case.
Nope, afraid not. I've only just returned from spending a little over two months camping in fairly remote parts of Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Georgia and the Carolina's so I'm a bit behind in current events. I suspect I currently know less about what's in the various versions of the immigration bills running through the House and Senate than either you or JP1, but I'll be happy to get back with you once I've gotten up to speed.
The little I have heard or read indicates that there are disagreements in the pending bills regarding the number of illegal entries that will be allowed each day, the removal of asylum authority from immigration courts and transference to bureaucratic agencies, and lastly the inclusion of massive amounts of non-immigration related spending in the proposed legislation. It may take a while to suss out details by anyone interested in a big picture analysis.
The bill seems to me to be 400 pages of tartuffery aimed more at relieving the pressure on the Biden administration than the pressure on the border. It promotes the fiction that Biden simply lacked the power to do anything up to now. Some of the provisions would seem to attract “asylum seekers”, such as the automatic work permits, the additional green cards or the funding to pay lawyers for would-be immigrants.
Still, I think passing it won’t make things much worse than they already are. I doubt the voters it is aimed at will find Biden’s newfound border hawkishness any more credible than this claims for Bidenomics.
I don't know how many GOP supporters as part of the bi-partisan deal were turned when Trump started making threats to their career, but at one time it was not entirely Biden and the Democrats. I get that Mitch McConnell endorsed, but his career is probably toast already anyway if Trump wins. And it was supported by the Border Patrol Union. who probably knows more about it that any news outlet or political wrangling. It does seem to me Biden could have done something earlier, and maybe still can. What ever Trump did in his administration was hardly long lasting and he claims terrorists are coming across the border as we speak! An act of congress seems like the only long term solution. A missed opportunity.
"Despite its Trump ties, the National Border Patrol Council endorsed the Senate deal in a Monday statement, saying that the bill would “codify into law authorities that U.S. Border Patrol agents never had in the past.”"
"Despite its Trump ties, the National Border Patrol Council endorsed the Senate deal in a Monday statement, saying that the bill would “codify into law authorities that U.S. Border Patrol agents never had in the past.”"
I saw the President of the National Border Patrol Council speaking on TV earlier today and it seemed pretty clear that the Council was only endorsing the parts of the bill that they agreed with. He specifically stated that many amendments would be necessary to make the entire package palatable.
I saw the President of the National Border Patrol Council speaking on TV earlier today and it seemed pretty clear that the Council was only endorsing the parts of the bill that they agreed with. He specifically stated that many amendments would be necessary to make the entire package palatable.
The mainstream news at the common sites I see reports him as saying, "not perfect, but far better than the status quo". I see that as how compromise works. Maybe there is more negativity than they report or those words are up to the interpretation of the reader. He does seem to get in a Biden slam, which tend to agree with, but they are still endorsing it in spite of the shortcomings, which is much more than most of the GOP.
"The National Border Patrol Council — which represents more than 18,000 agents — said the bill would “drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-bill-senate-bipartisan-border-patrol-endorsement-rcna137354
Seems like there is also the attached issue around funding for Ukraine, which I'm not current on, but I'd not want to hang them out to dry.
This whole thing is fascinating. McConnell is now interested in moving forward the Ukraine/Isreal/Taiwan aid parts of the bill without any immigration spending because he's an actual adult that understands that those things matter despite trump's preference that dictators and authoritarians take over the world. Imagine the irony if the republicans tied their support of those things to immigration, were given pretty much everything they asked for regarding immigration, and then end up not getting immigration and the rest of that spending happens. That's the kind of idiocy that happens when one doesn't understand the definition of compromise. But hey, at least those losers got their 15 minutes of performative BS. Right?
The NYT had and article about James Lankford, the GOP Oklahoma Senator who helped pen the bill. Considered a conservative and also a Baptist minister. Trump said, this was a "very bad bill for Lankford's career and especially in Oklahoma". That's MAGA.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.