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.Originally Posted by Alan
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.
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
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.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
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.”"
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
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.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
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.
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
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.
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote