Kamala's Awful Record As Border Czar - Here's the Raw Truth

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Well, it seem like the repubs are having a squabble amongst themselves.

"...But a deeply divided Republican conference was scrambling to find support for the wartime funding, even though it has been a top priority for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. It was the latest sign of the longtime Republican leader’s slipping control over his conference and underscored how the traditional GOP tenet of robust foreign involvement is giving way to Donald Trump’s “America First” nationalism. At stake is the future of Ukraine’s defense against Russia. ..."

this thread is about OUR border security. FUCK Ukraine. and Russia.


Good point.

good point if you mean that's why the Republicans BLOCKED a Border security bill that tied billions of aid to Ukraine and Israel.


please explain why that has anything to do with OUR border security?

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

good point if you mean that's why the Republicans BLOCKED a Border security bill that tied billions of aid to Ukraine and Israel.


please explain why that has anything to do with OUR border security?

Isn't Trump pro Israel? Doesn't he mock Jewish voters who do not support him? So why would Trump try to kill a bipartisan immigration bill that gives military aid to Israel? Answer, he wants immigration to continue to be a problem so he can campaign against it.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Flash forward... it's an election year again. The Dems looked at the polls and belatedly realized their open borders policy is a big self-inflicted wound and a LOSING ISSUE for them! So they said let's find a clever, twisted way to blame Trump.

It ain't working.

Trump's executive orders were not bipartisan. The immigration bill written by the most conservative Republican Senator in the Senate was. Trump made a couple of phone calls to lower house GOP reps and the bill was DOA.

It is working, Harris is ahead in the polls in the swing states she needs to win.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

...


please explain why that has anything to do with OUR border security?

Why sure.

*AFTER* you honour ALL the request that have been made of you to do such.

A simple search will reveal them.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Why sure.

*AFTER* you honour ALL the request that have been made of you to do such.

A simple search will reveal them.

then post the links. i already have.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Trump's executive orders were not bipartisan...

Of course they weren't. There's no such thing as a "bipartisan executive order". An EO allows the party in control of the executive branch to show its true colors. No need to reach across the aisle and compromise, right?

Biden/Harris showed their true colors when they threw open the fucking border on Day 1 (i.e. Jan. 20, 2001) by signing 89 new EOs that reversed Trump's policy actions designed to close and protect our borders!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Isn't Trump pro Israel? ... So why would Trump try to kill a bipartisan immigration bill that gives military aid to Israel?

Wrong question...

Why do Joe Biden and Kamala Harris care more about protecting and defending Ukraine's borders than our own borders??

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wrong question...

Why do Joe Biden and Kamala Harris care more about protecting and defending Ukraine's borders than our own borders??

How about the fact that Russia and Iranian proxies are not invading our territory like they are in Ukraine and Israel. How about the fact that Russia and Iran are destabilizing the world order that has been established since the end of WW2.

Everybody in the World should care about that in my opinion.

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Of course they weren't. There's no such thing as a "bipartisan executive order". An EO allows the party in control of the executive branch to show its true colors. No need to reach across the aisle and compromise, right?

Biden/Harris showed their true colors when they threw open the fucking border on Day 1 (i.e. Jan. 20, 2001) by signing 89 new EOs that reversed Trump's policy actions designed to close and protect our borders!

You are full of shit about opening borders. Most of what trump did was illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane. Extending the wall is stupid and ineffective.

The only thing resembling opening border was ending Title 42 as the pandemic was under control and winding down.

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wrong question...

Why do Joe Biden and Kamala Harris care more about protecting and defending Ukraine's borders than our own borders??

Budapest Memorandum... Or should we make deals with countries to make the world safer then reneg on them when it suits us?

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by royamcr

It's 5000 encounters, not people. Many try multiple times and are encountered by patrol each time.

This is an important clarification. Here's why.

Encounters include apprehensions AND expulsions.

These are generally

1. people temporarily in CBP custody, and given a court date for their asylum claim to be adjudicated (apprehensions)

AND

2. people who were denied entry and returned to either their home country or last country of transit (expulsions)

If someone shows up and is removed today and returns tomorrow, that's 2 encounters (explusions). Not 2 separate people. If they're removed and try to or do return illegally they are subject to a permanent ban.

Now let's focus on the apprehensions group. This will include admissible and inadmissible. Admissibles have an existing legal path today to enter. Inadmissibles do not, but can file an asylum claim. If they don't, they'll be removed. Those who do are documented aliens until their case is adjudicated. Many will be eligible to work temporarily. It could take 180 day or up to 7 years for these folks to be processed. If the asylum claim is denied, a removal order will be issued.

This link is helpful, but not gospel.

https://usafacts.org/articles/what-c...d-immigration/

This one on border recidivism is also interesting

https://usafacts.org/articles/border...der-crossings/

Now, Asylum claims.

Only about 18% of asylum claims today are heard and approved. Why?

A similar percentage of asylum claims are heard and denied? Wait, how? Those two numbers don't total anything close to 100%.

Those remaining cases fall into other buckets. 1 is that the asylum applicant has one or more other legal irons in the fire and the case is left unadjudicated while those other processes play out. One of those may be a Temporary Protected Status program enacted by the executive branch.

2. Are folks withdrew their cases formally. Most of these folks either found a different legal path, returned home or went elsewhere

3. Are those who didn't appear at their court date. This includes those who didn't formally withdraw but left. Those who were already deported/removed. And those who disappeared into the ether. This group is small. Removal orders will be in effect.


None of this speaks to refugees, who apply abroad.

Asylum claims occur at the border and is a legal means of immigrating, even if the initial entry was illegal.

And if you're still reading, there were only about 1.1 million asylum cases pending with the courts as of April 2024, and an additional 1.1 million pending with USCIS. If rejected by USCIS, most of those cases with be added to the immigration court docket. These are total cases. Not annual. Good perspective.

The apprehension rates are estimated about 75% under Trump and Biden.

There are just shy of 700 immigration judges today who are closing about 975 cases each per year. Backlogs under Trump increased by about 2.5x.

[HDGristle]

Now...let's look at the 5,000 encounters that were in the bill and what actually were the triggers. Note that unaccompanied kids don't count towards the encounter tally.

The bill would have created an the following triggers

Optional:
4,000 encounters per day over 7 day period

Mandatory:
5,000 encounters per day over a 7 day period

Or

8,500 encounters in a single day

For the first 90 days of the bill the 4,000 trigger would be mandatory.

So if triggered, what happened?

The emergency actions to restrict (not close) the borders would go into effect and not be lifted until the rate dropped to sufficient levels. It implemented additional bans for multiple encounter individuals. It permitted speedier removals.

And it did nothing to prevent the executive branch from using its other powers.

The bill also adjusted the asylum process by implementing a higher reasonability standard than what's in place today, independent of the emergency actions. In 2023, about 65% of those interviewed showed credible fear, but only 44% showed reasonable fear. The reasonable fear standard would have been implemented.

It also implemented bars if the case determinants migrant could have avoided persecution by moving within thier own country or country of last residence.

A revamped expedited removal process

A 47% increase in the number of beds available for ICE detention centers

A 13% increase to the number of available employment based green cards and a 7% increase for family based green cards (which would have helped some of the massive India backlog)

Don't focus on the 5,000 number the wrong way. A substantial majority of the encounters today lead to quick expulsions. Those folks don't end up in your cities, towns and neighborhoods. They don't get court dates. Work permits. They get sent back home or to their last country of residence. Pretending that means we're adding those folks to our population daily is not what's happening.

There's absolutely a problem at the border. Absolutely too many folks trying go cross. Absolutely some bad apples. But the scale is nothing like what the fear mongering says it is.

What's being used right now since that bill died?

Biden implemented a modified Title 8 and 42 approach by EO in June. That triggers when the daily avg is 2,500 encounters. AND, if you cross the border without authorization, you're not eligible for asylum.

Would be nice to have that as part of an actual law that an EO.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

This is an important clarification. Here's why....

Informative posts Gristle, thanks

[Tiny]

This story focuses on one Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, which appeared on the scene in New York City this year. It's being repeated in other cities and with other gangs from countries like El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico. I'd provide excerpts, but suspect those here who would benefit from reading it are already subscribers. Trump may exaggerate the risk from immigrant criminality. But it certainly exists.

Venezuelan Gang’s Path to U.S. Stokes Fear, Crime and Border Politics
Tren de Aragua’s emergence in New York City and elsewhere has led law enforcement officials to strategize how to stem the gang’s growth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/22/n...sultPosition=1

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by royamcr

You are full of shit about opening borders. Most of what trump did was illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane. Extending the wall is stupid and ineffective.

The only thing resembling opening border was ending Title 42 as the pandemic was under control and winding down.

you are aware Harris "suddenly" supports the border wall?


https://www.axios.com/2024/08/27/kam...ps-border-wall


Harris flip-flops on building the border wall

If she's elected president, Kamala Harris pledges to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the wall along the southern border — a project she once opposed and called "un-American" during the Trump administration.


Why it matters: It's the latest example of Harris flip-flopping on her past liberal positions such as supporting Medicare for All and banning fracking — proposals that aides say she now is against.

• Harris is embracing a more hawkish immigration policy as Donald Trump's campaign spends tens of millions of dollars attacking her about the border.

Driving the news: In her speech to the Democratic National Convention last week, Harris said she would sign the recent bipartisan border security bill — which Trump had ordered his allies to kill, fearing it would help Democrats in the November elections.

• That bill, negotiated by senators such as James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), requires hundreds of millions of dollars of unspent funds to be used to continue building a wall on the border.
• "It requires the Trump border wall," Lankford told Axios. "It is in the bill itself that it sets the standards that were set during the Trump administration: Here's where it will be built. Here's how it has to be built, the height, the type, everything during the Trump construction."

and for our valued posters here of course is the obligatory DA-NILE by those "unbiased" fact checkers ..


Harris Has Not Flipped on Trump Border Wall

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/08/ha...p-border-wall/


Harris didn't flip-flop .. she did a somersault. any voter who doesn't see this as nothing more than grandstanding for votes is naive at best.

and i'll leave it to you to provide details on your claims that

"Most of what trump did was illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane."


i'd avoid bringing up the cages .. Obama built them.