DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Build That Wall some more!

Why do you lefties fear controlling the border. Trump did it and it can be done again. We don’t need changed immigration laws. We need to stop dumping millions of uneducated peasants into our country. Now!

I see you refuse to address anything of substance? Let's try this again. EVEN TRUMP called on congress for a new immigration bill.

Why do you Reugnantcans act like that never happened and now it's some sin to hold congress accountable for doing its job?

For some folks it is.

Many think he did some things that were outside of his power.

And of course that's still your excuse why congress should do nothing and not be held accountable for it.

Yet trump let Covid come traipsing through his controlled borders? And since when do GOPers call on science to fix an issue?

You heard it here first, DT.

COVID was also TRUMP'S FAULT.

Covid wasn't his fault. The idiotic things he said about it and the way he handled it was. Only the blind saw that here first.

"Only the blind saw that here first."

Yes, anyone paying attention knew that long before now. They didn't need to read it on a message board in 2024 to know that.

It happened on his watch. Tell me truthfully if it happened on Biden’s watch, who do you think would take the heat?

Lankford defends border bill amid GOP criticism: ‘Don’t just go off of Facebook’

Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), the lead GOP architect of the bipartisan Senate border security deal, pushed back on Republican critics, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for rushing to condemn the legislation.

Lankford during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” also responded to the scathing criticism of the legislation by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who panned the proposal Sunday as the “Border Capitulation Bill” and more bluntly as a “crap-sandwich of a border bill.”

Lankford noted that Lee had previously insisted on giving senators at least three weeks to review the 370-page bill but is expressing opposition after having less than a day to study it.

“He needs three weeks to be able to read it, but he’s already opposed to it. So again, people have to be able to read it and go through it themselves. Don’t just go off of Facebook post somewhere on what the bill says,” Lankford said.

Lankford, who spent four months negotiating the legislation and said it “blew up” his Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s holidays, said it’s “unfortunate” that the Speaker has declared the Senate bill is “even worse than expected” and “dead on arrival” in the House.

The Oklahoma senator lamented Johnson’s condemnation of the bill without taking more time to digest reforms such as raising the standard of migrants seeking asylum, eliminating the backlog at immigration courts and granting the president new power to expel migrants and shut down the border.

“Unfortunate that he would step out and be able to see that right away, before, obviously, he has had a chance to be able to read it as well, and to be able to go through it,” he said of Johnson’s declaration that the bill has no chance of passing the House.

Lankford said Republicans need to make a decision about whether they want to enact some meaningful border security reforms into law or to let the border crisis continue unabated and allow an average of 10,000 people to steam into the country each day, many of them unvetted.

“The key aspect of this, again, is are we, as Republicans, going to have press conferences and complain the border’s bad and then intentionally leave it open after the worst month in American history in December?” Lankford argued.

“Now we’ve got to actually determine, are we going to just complain about things? Are we going to actually … change as many things as we can if we have the shot?” he said.

Lankford has told reporters that under the bill, once the daily average of migrants encountered at the border reaches 5,000, President Biden will be forced to shut down the border until the Department of Homeland Security regains operational control.

And he has dismissed talk among some GOP lawmakers that passing a bipartisan border deal will protect Biden from attacks over his immigration record.

“I’ve had some Republicans say, ‘Well, this will make Joe Biden whole [on immigration].’ I don’t think anyone is going to see Joe Biden as the border security president. I just don’t think there’s any chance of that. Because what we’ve seen the last three years is an open border like our country’s never experienced. So I don’t think when we pass this bill everybody’s going to suddenly think he’s the savior of the closed border,” Lankford told reporters last week.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4448612-lankford-defends-border-bill/

What some call state run media reports what a Republican says. That means it doesn't count I suppose.

He’s just another target now. He’ll be ridiculed and threatened by the maga right. You know doing their jobs and working with dems to actually get something done. Shame on him, hang him.

That's become the most popular trick from their playbook.

One side claims they hate it because they claim it doesn't go far enough and the other side hates it because they claim it goes too far. When extremists on both sides hate something this much it must be better than the extremists on both sides claim....

Padilla criticizes border deal as ‘failed Trump-era immigration policy’

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) denounced the Senate’s bipartisan border security and foreign policy agreement Sunday, claiming the deal is nothing more than a retread of Trump administration policy.

The package includes significant reforms for the asylum process, a presidential emergency declaration to shutter the border, and other immigration changes, in addition to foreign aid funding.

“After months of a negotiating process that lacked transparency or the involvement of a single border-state Democrat or member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, it is no surprise that this border deal misses the mark,” Padilla said in a statement. “The deal includes a new version of a failed Trump-era immigration policy that will cause more chaos at the border, not less.”

The deal, announced Sunday evening, immediately faced mountains of criticism from House Republicans. Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said the House will not put the bill up for a vote if it passes the Senate, saying it does not go far enough.

House Democrats have also gone after the deal, especially members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and Progressive Caucus.

Earlier Sunday, the progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said she is unlikely to vote for the measure.

“Congressional Republicans continue to push enforcement-only strategies that have failed for decades,” she said on X, formerly known as Twitter. “The extreme MAGA Republican Party has absolutely zero interest in actually fixing our immigration system.”

In December, during early negotiations over the deal, CHC Chair Rep. Nanette Díaz Barragán (D-Calif.) joined Padilla in a joint statement criticizing an early form of the agreement.

“We are deeply concerned that the President would consider advancing Trump-era immigration policies that Democrats fought so hard against — and that he himself campaigned against — in exchange for aid to our allies that Republicans already support,” the pair wrote. “Caving to the demands for these permanent damaging policy changes as a ‘price to be paid’ for an unrelated one-time spending package would set a dangerous precedent.”

President Biden endorsed the deal Sunday, praising “around the clock” work on negotiations.

“Now we’ve reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal that includes the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades. I strongly support it,” Biden wrote in a statement.

“I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement. Get it to my desk so I can sign it into law immediately,” he said.

“Now, House Republicans have to decide. Do they want to solve the problem? Or do they want to keep playing politics with the border? I’ve made my decision. I’m ready to solve the problem. I’m ready to secure the border. And so are the American people,” Biden wrote.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...213scC2uSK-ECNrriq0xzZZI9SZStbEk0WgGju_M

You do understand Biden said "if they pass the bill, I will SHUT DOWN the border, immediately." Right?

But in the bill it allows 5,000 PER DAY before any action. That's over 1.8 million a year - free and clear.

That's not 'shut down'.

As I said, it appears you haven't been keeping up and instead just keep repeating GOP talking points. It only allows for 5000 people a day to apply for asylum. After that the applications for asylum would stop for the day. There would no longer be catch and release. Those who were allowed to apply for asylum would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews. In effect it would end people coming into the U.S. illegally from being released and from staying here. A few details from a longer article.....

Migrants would not just be released into the U.S.

Migrants would not be able to just cross the border illegally under the new bill. It would end the practice of "catch and release," in which Border Patrol agents release migrants into the U.S. while they await immigration hearings.

Instead, migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews.
What about migrants who try to cross legally with asylum claims?

If the deal were to become law, migrants who come to the U.S. border at official ports of entry would be diverted to a new "removal authority program" in which they would have 90 days to make their initial asylum interviews. Those migrants would not be released into the interior of the U.S., either; they would either be detained or kept under government supervision.

If they failed their initial asylum interviews, they would be removed immediately.

But migrants who passed the asylum interview would get to stay in the country for an additional 90 days until their asylum cases were decided. In the meantime, they would receive work authorizations. Once their cases were adjudicated, they would qualify for a path to citizenship.
So where did this 5,000-a-day figure come from?

The bipartisan deal does include provisions that would shut down the border entirely if a certain threshold is hit, but those are border encounters, not crossings. As noted above, no migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally would be allowed into the country unless they passed asylum interviews or were being held under government supervision.

In addition to those provisions, 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.
What happens if the border is closed?

If the border were shut down, up to 1,400 migrants per day who tried to enter at official ports of entry would still qualify to have their asylum claims considered. The rest would be turned away.

Migrants encountered between ports of entry would be immediately turned away. If the same person tried to cross twice when the border was shut down between ports of entry, the person would be barred from entering the U.S. for one year.

To reopen the border, crossings would need to slow to below 75% of the number that triggered the border closure for seven days. DHS would then have up to two weeks to slowly reopen the border based on capacity.

There would be a limit to how long the border could be shut down, to avoid abuse of the authority. For 2024, it would be capped at 270 days, but the number is designed to fluctuate year by year, as negotiators hope that migrant crossings would slow with the new law in place.

The bill is designed to discourage illegal crossings

Over time, negotiators believe, the legislation and ending the practice of catch and release would encourage migrants to seek asylum lawfully at ports of entry rather than try to cross illegally between ports of entry.

The bill would also raise the standard to seek asylum. And it would provide other resources for the border, including increasing detention capacity for migrants who were held pending asylum claims.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...egal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656

Oh? So, what do they do with the thousands of others that don't apply?

Biden said "if the bill passes, he will SHUT the border DOWN."

How does this bill do that?

They get sent back across the border. What part of this are you missing? What do you think the end of catch and release means? I've explained this to you as simply as possible and you still don't get it.

What don't YOU get? I'm talking about the ones that don't apply, and don't go through the "normal" channels. You know, the ones that don't get caught.

But Biden said he'd shut it down.

Biden didn’t negotiate this deal, senators did.

GOPers complaining to help Trump stop a border security deal is like an episode of Twilight Zone to me. NUTS.

Biden also didnt rollback the 535 executive orders he signed, making the border a turnstyle.

He said he'd shut it down if the bill passed.

Now, we hear he'd shut down the legal immigrants, IF it reached 5,000 a day over a rolling 5 day period. He ain't shutting anything down.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bi...down-border-when-overwhelmed-2024-01-27/

And furthermore, the illegals aren't crossing at 'border crossing' sites.

Spit on this bill.

Revenge politics.

REpTARDican pOlOtIks.

Yep…Mexico paying for that wall was brilliant.

Acting Chief of Border and Border Patrol Union endorses Senate deal-Far better than status quo


https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...er-patrol-union-back-senate-border-deal/


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bo...senate-border-deal-far-better-status-quo

If the bill was called trump’s border deal……be passed in a NY minute.