NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The bracero program ended in 1964. What is the 'process' now for agricultural workers? And on the subject of wages, don't tell me motel chains, construction, and the meatpacking industry don't like things *just the way they are*. No unionization to worry about because all supes have to do is threaten to speak with la migra.

These jobs don't pay as bad as you make them out to be, also you ignore the fact that these jobs pay a certain market rate. Just like with fast food jobs. They pay $40,000-50,000 a year not $100,000. It doesn't mean these businesses are liking paying people poorly with the threat of calling immigration. Yet again another red herring.

Aaron747 wrote:

All of these people are all not.....sounds like this means some are. We have no way to iron that out with immigration courts as dysfunctional as they currently are. You said 'go through the process'...well, the process needs fixing. Asylum claims need to be adjudicated to determine if they are bogus or not.

It sure does but it doesn't mean we just let people stream in here by the thousands and propagate the narrative they are asylum seekers. The border needs to be closed and secure for any thing to change because to do otherwise just enables people to think they are going to get amnesty as long as they enter illegally.

So, again, what’s the ‘process’ for migrant workers to pick crops, pack meat, and build buildings? Answer: right now there is none. Employers are totally fine with that.

The last such guest worker program ended in 1964. The current laws have annual caps on visas for people from LatAm, and processing takes years and thousands of dollars. No bipartisan great compromise since the Reagan amnesty of 1986.

Supreme Court has intervened and issued a stay on the order to end Title 42. So, it remains in place for now.

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-tit ... fd3d8.html

leader1 wrote:

Supreme Court has intervened and issued a stay on the order to end Title 42. So, it remains in place for now.

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-tit ... fd3d8.html

Both sides of the case have fair points. But Title 42 is not the solution to a far larger and more dynamic soup of related issues.

Whew - kudos to the guys who set up the three branches of government! Now Congress needs to get to work.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Whew - kudos to the guys who set up the three branches of government! Now Congress needs to get to work.

Well with the GOP about to put in place an ethically challenged leader in the house, we can't expect good or honest solutions there. It will probably come down to some negotiations with Mexico about why they aren'r doing better on their southern borders, and why they keep passing the buck on.

We won't have great solutions to this issue, especially with Desantis and Abbott inviting people to the "Open Borders" and then shipping them onwards to job centers.

casinterest wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Whew - kudos to the guys who set up the three branches of government! Now Congress needs to get to work.

Well with the GOP about to put in place an ethically challenged leader in the house, we can't expect good or honest solutions there. It will probably come down to some negotiations with Mexico about why they aren'r doing better on their southern borders, and why they keep passing the buck on.

We won't have great solutions to this issue, especially with Desantis and Abbott inviting people to the "Open Borders" and then shipping them onwards to job centers.

The Mexican government doesn’t actually control much of their country. End of story.

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Whew - kudos to the guys who set up the three branches of government! Now Congress needs to get to work.

Well with the GOP about to put in place an ethically challenged leader in the house, we can't expect good or honest solutions there. It will probably come down to some negotiations with Mexico about why they aren'r doing better on their southern borders, and why they keep passing the buck on.

We won't have great solutions to this issue, especially with Desantis and Abbott inviting people to the "Open Borders" and then shipping them onwards to job centers.

The Mexican government doesn’t actually control much of their country. End of story.

As you stated earlier it is a mess. However Mexico has to be a part of the solution.

casinterest wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Whew - kudos to the guys who set up the three branches of government! Now Congress needs to get to work.

Well with the GOP about to put in place an ethically challenged leader in the house, we can't expect good or honest solutions there. It will probably come down to some negotiations with Mexico about why they aren'r doing better on their southern borders, and why they keep passing the buck on.

We won't have great solutions to this issue, especially with Desantis and Abbott inviting people to the "Open Borders" and then shipping them onwards to job centers.

Thom Hartmann brought up this point. Republicans are the ones screaming to the world about America's "Open Border" every time a Democrat is in the White House. The "migrant caravans" and "illegal surges" happen during mid-term elections when a Democrat is in the White House because Republicans announce "Open Border" policies by "liberals".

seb146 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Whew - kudos to the guys who set up the three branches of government! Now Congress needs to get to work.

Well with the GOP about to put in place an ethically challenged leader in the house, we can't expect good or honest solutions there. It will probably come down to some negotiations with Mexico about why they aren'r doing better on their southern borders, and why they keep passing the buck on.

We won't have great solutions to this issue, especially with Desantis and Abbott inviting people to the "Open Borders" and then shipping them onwards to job centers.

Thom Hartmann brought up this point. Republicans are the ones screaming to the world about America's "Open Border" every time a Democrat is in the White House. The "migrant caravans" and "illegal surges" happen during mid-term elections when a Democrat is in the White House because Republicans announce "Open Border" policies by "liberals".

Yeah Abbott did the smoke bomb on this issue when ABC asked him the other day. It is their fear mongering attitude

What gets me is all the cheerleaders that are for Title 42, are generally the same ones that are renouncing all the other Covid Related rules and executive orders. And YES, Title 42 was a COVID related executive order.

LCDFlight wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

This is always good for a laugh. There are almost NO jobs Americans won’t do. They picked crops, by hand, for 300 years. And centuries before that, depending on where they were from. They can’t clean hotel rooms?!
Bizarre although common distortion, imo. I have some US born relatives who did both!

In order to hire Americans though, you need to pay American wages. Of course, I would rather pay Lithuanian or Ecuadorian wages if I can get away with that; that’s just common sense.

Perhaps the situation is that employers could employ US citizens, but cannot find US citizens prepared to work for what the employers want to pay.

I have the same problem with doctors! What then… can I import my own doctors? They are willing to come. I am ready to take action on that.

Foreign doctors may not look kindly at receiving wages that correspond with their home country.

Cannot figure out if statements from Biden Administration complaining about the Title 42 extension are legit or being done to appease the Progressive wing. Just spent an hour watching a documentary on homelessness in California. Now even more depressed.

Where exactly are these migrants going to go for shelter?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Cannot figure out if statements from Biden Administration complaining about the Title 42 extension are legit or being done to appease the Progressive wing. Just spent an hour watching a documentary on homelessness in California. Now even more depressed.

Where exactly are these migrants going to go for shelter?

The Biden administration doesn't have a plan, but the hardline GOP immigration wing doesn't have a plan either. In the meantime, human damage continues on the daily. Perhaps we need a nonpolitical advisory committee of humanitarian and industry experts to handle the immigration issue.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Cannot figure out if statements from Biden Administration complaining about the Title 42 extension are legit or being done to appease the Progressive wing. Just spent an hour watching a documentary on homelessness in California. Now even more depressed.

Where exactly are these migrants going to go for shelter?

Don't conflate all the migrants with the homeless. Many of those seeking assylum found ther way thousands of miles from home. They are resourceful and hard working for the most part. Despite what the GOP likes to claim to the contrary.

casinterest wrote:

Don't conflate all the migrants with the homeless. Many of those seeking assylum found ther way thousands of miles from home. They are resourceful and hard working for the most part. Despite what the GOP likes to claim to the contrary.

Can you provide any source the GOP has said that? I mean nobody is saying they are lazy and don't work, they are saying they should come here legally. Big difference. More smoke.

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Don't conflate all the migrants with the homeless. Many of those seeking assylum found ther way thousands of miles from home. They are resourceful and hard working for the most part. Despite what the GOP likes to claim to the contrary.

Can you provide any source the GOP has said that? I mean nobody is saying they are lazy and don't work, they are saying they should come here legally. Big difference. More smoke.

Yeah that's great, but there's never any detail. How would the guest worker program work? How would Mexico ensure compliance on their end? The Mexico we are dealing with now is not the same as when the bracero program was running decades ago. 'They should come here legally' is not a solution - it's just a phrase.

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Don't conflate all the migrants with the homeless. Many of those seeking assylum found ther way thousands of miles from home. They are resourceful and hard working for the most part. Despite what the GOP likes to claim to the contrary.

Can you provide any source the GOP has said that? I mean nobody is saying they are lazy and don't work, they are saying they should come here legally. Big difference. More smoke.

Assylum seekers are legal. Are you joining the same discussion as I am in?
As for lazy or taking resources/don't work, why else would the GOP governors be maqking headlines about shipping immigrants off to other cities. If they beleived they were hardworking, and that their states were worth itt, wouldn't they be putting them to work?

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Don't conflate all the migrants with the homeless. Many of those seeking assylum found ther way thousands of miles from home. They are resourceful and hard working for the most part. Despite what the GOP likes to claim to the contrary.

Can you provide any source the GOP has said that? I mean nobody is saying they are lazy and don't work, they are saying they should come here legally. Big difference. More smoke.

They are rapists who come from bad countries (although he used a very different word than "bad")

https://americasvoice.org/blog/donald-t ... residents/

And, oh look at that: right off the bat is St. Ronnie Reagan throwing open the borders. That most famous of liberals talking about open borders....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1N018C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrnfbN2_yG0

Aaron747 wrote:

Yeah that's great, but there's never any detail. How would the guest worker program work? How would Mexico ensure compliance on their end? The Mexico we are dealing with now is not the same as when the bracero program was running decades ago. 'They should come here legally' is not a solution - it's just a phrase.

See it's not about getting a solution. It's about enabling illegal immigration. I wonder what would happen I tried to just walk in Mexico without doing it legally, I would be shot on sight. No matter what solution you think is right there is still the fact that the amount of people coming into to the country has to be reduced and controlled and democrats don't want that. They want unfettered, mass flows of people coming into this country.

casinterest wrote:

Assylum seekers are legal. Are you joining the same discussion as I am in?
As for lazy or taking resources/don't work, why else would the GOP governors be maqking headlines about shipping immigrants off to other cities. If they beleived they were hardworking, and that their states were worth itt, wouldn't they be putting them to work?

They aren't all asylum seekers, they just say that so they can walk in the country. As for GOP governors shipping them away well take Texas for example their unemployment rate is low and keeps dropping so why allow this huge flow of illegal immigrants?

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Yeah that's great, but there's never any detail. How would the guest worker program work? How would Mexico ensure compliance on their end? The Mexico we are dealing with now is not the same as when the bracero program was running decades ago. 'They should come here legally' is not a solution - it's just a phrase.

See it's not about getting a solution. It's about enabling illegal immigration. I wonder what would happen I tried to just walk in Mexico without doing it legally, I would be shot on sight. No matter what solution you think is right there is still the fact that the amount of people coming into to the country has to be reduced and controlled and democrats don't want that. They want unfettered, mass flows of people coming into this country.

casinterest wrote:

Assylum seekers are legal. Are you joining the same discussion as I am in?
As for lazy or taking resources/don't work, why else would the GOP governors be maqking headlines about shipping immigrants off to other cities. If they beleived they were hardworking, and that their states were worth itt, wouldn't they be putting them to work?

They aren't all asylum seekers, they just say that so they can walk in the country. As for GOP governors shipping them away well take Texas for example their unemployment rate is low and keeps dropping so why allow this huge flow of illegal immigrants?

You are complaining about things that are far more complicated than your blatent political favoritsm
So you don't beleive anything about assylum seekers, or the people that work for the border patrol and judges that make those decisions, but you will believe anythign a Texas polician will say?

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Yeah that's great, but there's never any detail. How would the guest worker program work? How would Mexico ensure compliance on their end? The Mexico we are dealing with now is not the same as when the bracero program was running decades ago. 'They should come here legally' is not a solution - it's just a phrase.

See it's not about getting a solution. It's about enabling illegal immigration. I wonder what would happen I tried to just walk in Mexico without doing it legally, I would be shot on sight. No matter what solution you think is right there is still the fact that the amount of people coming into to the country has to be reduced and controlled and democrats don't want that. They want unfettered, mass flows of people coming into this country.

This is an example of what Aaron was trying to explain to you. It's not a solution (or even accurate) to say the Democrats want to flood the country with Democratic voters. As Aaron said, it's just a phrase and a Fox News talking point.

The problems entailed in this issue are far more complex than that, or any other simple-minded representation. Many aspects have to be addressed in the solution.

Any solution that doesn't address these aspects is doomed to failure, no matter how politically expedient it may be as a talking point.

casinterest wrote:

You are complaining about things that are far more complicated than your blatent political favoritsm
So you don't beleive anything about assylum seekers, or the people that work for the border patrol and judges that make those decisions, but you will believe anythign a Texas polician will say?

It's not what a Texas politician is saying, check Texas' unemployment #s. See another dodged question. When you don't need an influx of workers what do you do? You just keep letting them walk in and insult anyone who takes issue. It gets old.

Avatar2go wrote:

This is an example of what Aaron was trying to explain to you. It's not a solution (or even accurate) to say the Democrats want to flood the country with Democratic voters. As Aaron said, it's just a phrase and a Fox News talking point.

The problems entailed in this issue are far more complex than that, or any other simple-minded representation. Many aspects have to be addressed in the solution.

Any solution that doesn't address these aspects is doomed to failure, no matter how politically expedient it may be as a talking point.

Blah blah blah, same old story. Insult anyone who takes issue with the open border mantra. The issue is not complex, it's just a CNN talking point designed to distract and demonize and to punt this disaster down the road which is what the Dems want and see what the electorate thinks about it in 2024.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Yeah that's great, but there's never any detail. How would the guest worker program work? How would Mexico ensure compliance on their end? The Mexico we are dealing with now is not the same as when the bracero program was running decades ago. 'They should come here legally' is not a solution - it's just a phrase.

See it's not about getting a solution. It's about enabling illegal immigration. I wonder what would happen I tried to just walk in Mexico without doing it legally, I would be shot on sight. No matter what solution you think is right there is still the fact that the amount of people coming into to the country has to be reduced and controlled and democrats don't want that. They want unfettered, mass flows of people coming into this country.

'Walking into Mexico' is a non sequitur - we're not talking about that, and even if we were, there simply aren't very many Americans trying to get in like that. Focus on the topic.

You can say 'they have to come in legally' but you also said earlier upthread that we obviously need workers for all this work 'Americans won't do.' And the political situation is still dogshit in most of LatAm, so this ain't going away. Again: what's the solution? 'Come in legally' is not a solution.

This is a major issue and neither party has had a solution to date. You can blame Democrats, but that's not a solution either. Since the Reagan amnesty compromise in 1986, there has been NO comprehensive bipartisan reform. The closest we came was in 1996 when Clinton signed IIRIRA with GOP controlling Congress and that bill massively increased deportation ability for then-INS.

The GOP had both houses of Congress + POTUS for 6 years under 43 and 2 years under 45, and no effective solution arrived then either. 8 years wasn't enough??

https://history.house.gov/Institution/P ... overnment/

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You are complaining about things that are far more complicated than your blatent political favoritsm
So you don't beleive anything about assylum seekers, or the people that work for the border patrol and judges that make those decisions, but you will believe anythign a Texas polician will say?

It's not what a Texas politician is saying, check Texas' unemployment #s. See another dodged question. When you don't need an influx of workers what do you do? You just keep letting them walk in and insult anyone who takes issue. It gets old.

https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+unemployment+rat

4% So what again is wrong with assylum seeking immigrants with such a low unemployment rate?

NIKV69 wrote:

Blah blah blah, same old story. Insult anyone who takes issue with the open border mantra. The issue is not complex, it's just a CNN talking point designed to distract and demonize and to punt this disaster down the road which is what the Dems want and see what the electorate thinks about it in 2024.

You are welcome to provide any evidence that the Democratic position is to flood the nation with migrants. Any official statement, or any reporting that's been made to that effect, apart from conservative media outlets.

If you have no evidence, then we need to be clear that it is false, and a conspiracy theory, and is just a talking point.

NIKV69 wrote:

Insult anyone who takes issue with the open border mantra.

The open border mantra is *fake* for the umpteenth time. When CBP is told to stand down, or disbanded entirely, then we can say we have open borders. There have been millions of apprehensions and expulsions the last couple years:

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/media-resources/stats

There were 1.7 million arrests and 1.11 million expulsions in 2021 alone:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Which is better, 1.11 million or 0? 0 = open borders

Aaron747 wrote:

The GOP had both houses of Congress + POTUS for 6 years under 43 and 2 years under 45, and no effective solution arrived then either. 8 years wasn't enough??

https://history.house.gov/Institution/P ... overnment/

Obama had the same. did nothing. We both know why and we are seeing the results today.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/imm ... ng-failure

Avatar2go wrote:

If you have no evidence, then we need to be clear that it is false, and a conspiracy theory, and is just a talking point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3sVSYC7PaE

Your Jake Tapper CNN sound bytes not withstanding but it's clear as the day is long. Yet it's just more insults and CNN chants.

NIKV69 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3sVSYC7PaE

Your Jake Tapper CNN sound bytes not withstanding but it's clear as the day is long. Yet it's just more insults and CNN chants.

This is most definitely NOT evidence that the Democrat position is to flood the country with migrants.

It's just a video of the problem that we all acknowledge exists, and in fact is the premise of the thread.

Again, you are welcome to present EVIDENCE of your statements. We anxiously await!!

I've got to quit watching video's on West Coast homelessness.

Many interviewed have jobs but can't afford rent. Assuming the majority of those seeking entry at the border are not Chemical Engineers but will be working low wage jobs, how do they afford rent?

A common theme in the video's is how none of the politically entities can come up a solution to our current issues let alone finding housing for a couple of million more.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I've got to quit watching video's on West Coast homelessness.

Many interviewed have jobs but can't afford rent. Assuming the majority of those seeking entry at the border are not Chemical Engineers but will be working low wage jobs, how do they afford rent?

A common theme in the video's is how none of the politically entities can come up a solution to our current issues let alone finding housing for a couple of million more.

They can't - and also they have no credit history even if they could. There is a whole subeconomy in Latino neighborhoods catering to people who need temporary housing, but it is not uncommon to ultimately find four or five coworkers sharing a large 1BR apartment.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The GOP had both houses of Congress + POTUS for 6 years under 43 and 2 years under 45, and no effective solution arrived then either. 8 years wasn't enough??

https://history.house.gov/Institution/P ... overnment/

Obama had the same. did nothing. We both know why and we are seeing the results today.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/imm ... ng-failure

Not an answer, just more fingerpointing. We all know the immigration solution needs to be bipartisan. 42 was the only POTUS who came close - 43 couldn't get there despite holding Congress six years because he wasn't hawkish *enough* for some in the GOP caucus.

So again, what does a solution and compromise look like? That's what we all need to advocate for to get anything done.

NIKV69 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

If you have no evidence, then we need to be clear that it is false, and a conspiracy theory, and is just a talking point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3sVSYC7PaE

Your Jake Tapper CNN sound bytes not withstanding but it's clear as the day is long. Yet it's just more insults and CNN chants.

Evidence was provided in reply 75 by me. And let's be clear - the 'open borders' narrative is purely for emotional reaction. On the Dems side, the 'plight of children' same can be said. Both are lies, neither arrive at a solution. Surely you prefer 1.11 million expulsions to 0.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The GOP had both houses of Congress + POTUS for 6 years under 43 and 2 years under 45, and no effective solution arrived then either. 8 years wasn't enough??

https://history.house.gov/Institution/P ... overnment/

Obama had the same. did nothing. We both know why and we are seeing the results today.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/imm ... ng-failure

From YOUR cited article, Nik

And his administration aggressively enforced current laws, deporting more than 2.4 million people. The total is nearly as many as his two predecessors combined.

That does not sound like "open borders" to me! It also sounds like "open border" liberals like Obama and Biden see more border arrests and deportations than "build the wall" Republicans.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

While we haven't discussed it here lately, I imagine we'll be hearing quite a bit next week about the expiration of Title 42 and what happens after that date. As is typical for both political parties, no one is telling the US public what will happen if larger than expected numbers show up at the border.

Maybe we'll be surprised and they really do have a plan A and B. If not, I expect it to replace most stories on the 'front page" again.

What is Title 42 and why is it expiring and why does it matter? I have no clue and I do follow international politics.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The GOP had both houses of Congress + POTUS for 6 years under 43 and 2 years under 45, and no effective solution arrived then either. 8 years wasn't enough??

https://history.house.gov/Institution/P ... overnment/

Obama had the same. did nothing. We both know why and we are seeing the results today.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/imm ... ng-failure

From YOUR cited article, Nik

And his administration aggressively enforced current laws, deporting more than 2.4 million people. The total is nearly as many as his two predecessors combined.

That does not sound like "open borders" to me! It also sounds like "open border" liberals like Obama and Biden see more border arrests and deportations than "build the wall" Republicans.

But that's because Trump was strong and they fear Trump, so the migrants don't come. And when you have effete, milquetoast liberals like Biden and Kamala in charge, they know it's time to swarm the border and take over your local Denny's.

Very complicated theory here at work.

bluecrew wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Obama had the same. did nothing. We both know why and we are seeing the results today.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/imm ... ng-failure

From YOUR cited article, Nik

And his administration aggressively enforced current laws, deporting more than 2.4 million people. The total is nearly as many as his two predecessors combined.

That does not sound like "open borders" to me! It also sounds like "open border" liberals like Obama and Biden see more border arrests and deportations than "build the wall" Republicans.

But that's because Trump was strong and they fear Trump, so the migrants don't come. And when you have effete, milquetoast liberals like Biden and Kamala in charge, they know it's time to swarm the border and take over your local Denny's.

Very complicated theory here at work.

Thing is, they don’t actually take over Denny’s - they clean Denny’s and man the kitchen.

bluecrew wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Obama had the same. did nothing. We both know why and we are seeing the results today.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/imm ... ng-failure

From YOUR cited article, Nik

And his administration aggressively enforced current laws, deporting more than 2.4 million people. The total is nearly as many as his two predecessors combined.

That does not sound like "open borders" to me! It also sounds like "open border" liberals like Obama and Biden see more border arrests and deportations than "build the wall" Republicans.

But that's because Trump was strong and they fear Trump, so the migrants don't come. And when you have effete, milquetoast liberals like Biden and Kamala in charge, they know it's time to swarm the border and take over your local Denny's.

Very complicated theory here at work.

People were still entering the country illegally under Republican administrations. THAT is the point! The whole "masses at the border" only happens in years where Democrats are poised to take control. There are still people illegally in this country from the GWHB administration. People who came here on student or work visas and just forgot to leave. Just because Republican administrations don't arrest people does not mean people did not cross illegally. They still did.

seb146 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

seb146 wrote:

From YOUR cited article, Nik

And his administration aggressively enforced current laws, deporting more than 2.4 million people. The total is nearly as many as his two predecessors combined.

That does not sound like "open borders" to me! It also sounds like "open border" liberals like Obama and Biden see more border arrests and deportations than "build the wall" Republicans.

But that's because Trump was strong and they fear Trump, so the migrants don't come. And when you have effete, milquetoast liberals like Biden and Kamala in charge, they know it's time to swarm the border and take over your local Denny's.

Very complicated theory here at work.

People were still entering the country illegally under Republican administrations. THAT is the point! The whole "masses at the border" only happens in years where Democrats are poised to take control. There are still people illegally in this country from the GWHB administration. People who came here on student or work visas and just forgot to leave. Just because Republican administrations don't arrest people does not mean people did not cross illegally. They still did.

Of course. I wasn't being serious.

All of this immigration rhetoric is a Republican media strategy anyways. It always gets dusted off when they have to win an election or grind the country to a halt for a few months, so they can blame Democrats for everything.

Just get ready for the hearings on the "migrant caravan immigrant emergency and crimes by the Biden administration" chaired by Gym Jordan. They'll probably find 10-12 things to impeach the President for.

Dutchy wrote:

What is Title 42 and why is it expiring and why does it matter? I have no clue and I do follow international politics.

Title 42 was enacted during the height of the COVID pandemic, due to the risk of untested and unvaccinated individuals crossing the border. It allowed summary expulsions without a hearing or due process. It drastically reduced the number of asylum requests, as migrants did not have the opportunity to apply.

For awhile, something like 90% of migrants were expelled. Exceptions were made for families and unaccompanied children, on humanitarian grounds. Even that was controversial, as they were sent to immigration centers in the US without testing or vaccination. They did receive those services at the centers, but there was fear they would bring infection.

As COVID has receded, there has been debate about whether to allow Title 42 to expire, or to maintain it. The ability to do summary expulsions is one of the tools to deal with large increases in migrants appearing at the border.

Trump used the Title 42 expulsion power heavily. Biden has tried to find a more balanced approach, that would put better tools in place, before the Title 42 expiration. However Republicans disagree with Biden's proposals and have blocked them, and have challenged Title 42 expiration in court. So Biden went to court to request that Title 42 be allowed to expire.

The court has stayed the expiration, based on border state concerns of being overwhelmed by the influx of migrants, based on federal policy without Title 42. That is where things stand now.

Avatar2go wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

What is Title 42 and why is it expiring and why does it matter? I have no clue and I do follow international politics.

Title 42 was enacted during the height of the COVID pandemic, due to the risk of untested and unvaccinated individuals crossing the border. It allowed summary expulsions without a hearing or due process. It drastically reduced the number of asylum requests, as migrants did not have the opportunity to apply.

For awhile, something like 90% of migrants were expelled. Exceptions were made for families and unaccompanied children, on humanitarian grounds. Even that was controversial, as they were sent to immigration centers in the US without testing or vaccination. They did receive those services at the centers, but there was fear they would bring infection.

As COVID has receded, there has been debate about whether to allow Title 42 to expire, or to maintain it. The ability to do summary expulsions is one of the tools to deal with large increases in migrants appearing at the border.

Trump used the Title 42 expulsion power heavily. Biden has tried to find a more balanced approach, that would put better tools in place, before the Title 42 expiration. However Republicans disagree with Biden's proposals and have blocked them, and have challenged Title 42 expiration in court. So Biden went to court to request that Title 42 be allowed to expire.

The court has stayed the expiration, based on border state concerns of being overwhelmed by the influx of migrants, based on federal policy without Title 42. That is where things stand now.

Wouldn't that also explain the sudden decline in CPS apprehensions? Lack of travel due to COVID? Or was it the all powerful MAGA?

seb146 wrote:

Wouldn't that also explain the sudden decline in CPS apprehensions? Lack of travel due to COVID? Or was it the all powerful MAGA?

The Border Patrol classifies summary expulsions and apprehensions as separate outcomes. If a person is expelled, they are not apprehended. So expulsions by definition, reduce apprehensions.

If a person is apprehended but fails in their asylum request, they are deported, which is accounted separately from expulsions.

It's true as well, that travel to the border is influenced by the perceived chances of asylum. Since Title 42 removed the right to a hearing, it did reduce that travel for awhile. But now has essentially resumed the former increasing track that began in January 2019.

Another factor as mentioned here many times, is that over half of migrants now, are not Mexican citizens. Thus if they are expelled or deported, they cannot remain in Mexico. So the options are to go back home, or try again to enter the US. Not surprisingly, most opt for the latter, at least for several attempts, before giving up. This inflates the reported numbers.

This is where cooperation with the Mexican government becomes important. They have the same problem at their southern border. For expulsions or deportations from the US, Mexico needs to similarly expel across their border. And the chain must continue through the Central American countries that form the pathway.

However, organizing that is extraordinarily difficult.

Ironically, both Justices Gorsuch and Jackson-Brown agreed in dissenting from the opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 4_n758.pdf

The failure of Congress to be a legislative body is the downfall of the republic. We elect them to debate, present options, vote in laws to secure our nation and rights. Instead, it’s Hollywood for Ugly Idiots without courage or honor, craven to be elected, afraid of being taken away from the feeding trough.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Ironically, both Justices Gorsuch and Jackson-Brown agreed in dissenting from the opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 4_n758.pdf

The failure of Congress to be a legislative body is the downfall of the republic. We elect them to debate, present options, vote in laws to secure our nation and rights. Instead, it’s Hollywood for Ugly Idiots without courage or honor, craven to be elected, afraid of being taken away from the feeding trough.

I have to say the liberals are correct on this one, and i do not see a need to keep this action plan in place. I seriously don't see why the "Conservatives" are allowing the bill to stay in place. Inaction by Congress didn't impeed them from striking down Roe. Perhaps it will be a 9-0 final decsion.

There is no good plan at the border. US opportunity is what these people want. There are far too many countries south of the US offering up Corruption or blatent bad opportunities to thier citizens.

A wall is not good. It has high implementation and maintenance costs, and does not stop all the other legal border access issues with people overstaying.

Too much government oversight is not the answer as people don't want the government messing too much in private business affairs.
Starting wars of aggression with Mexico over the border wouldn't help out.

Is the US so small that it can't offfer opportunities to people willing to come and work here?

If so many of these counties are able to abuse their citizens, what happens when the abused move on to other countries? Those governments would natually fail wouldn't they?

Avatar2go wrote:

It allowed summary expulsions without a hearing or due process. It drastically reduced the number of asylum requests, as migrants did not have the opportunity to apply.

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

Dutchy wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

It allowed summary expulsions without a hearing or due process. It drastically reduced the number of asylum requests, as migrants did not have the opportunity to apply.

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

That's correct - it's become US policy and has indeed been defended by the courts. Specifically conservative judges, specifically they've usually been appointed by Trump.

Originally implemented as an emergency measure to stop COVID spread in migrant detention centers, now as you say correctly, a human rights issue.

Dutchy wrote:

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

Important to distinguish a stay, which is a matter of jurisdictional law, from endorsement or condonement.

The court is not ruling on the lawfulness or propreity of Title 42, which was enacted by Congress as an emergency measure. It's ruling on whether the states have the right to intervene in federal policy, out of self-interest, or self-preservation as they claim.

The court made clear that the preferable solution is for Congress to pass legislation so the matter does not end up before the court. But as with abortion rights, if Congress cannot agree, then inevitably the courts are thrust into the issue.

Perhaps someone will file a case on behalf of the migrants, alleging deprivation of human rights to seek asylum. That would be an entirely different matter before the court.

bluecrew wrote:

That's correct - it's become US policy and has indeed been defended by the courts.

And that's exactly why politicians should not appoint judges. It is against the Trias Politica of the French philosopher Montesquieu.

Avatar2go wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

Important to distinguish a stay, which is a matter of jurisdictional law, from endorsement or condonement.

The court is not ruling on the lawfulness or propreity of Title 42, which was enacted by Congress as an emergency measure. It's ruling on whether the states have the right to intervene in federal policy, out of self-interest, or self-preservation as they claim.

The court made clear that the preferable solution is for Congress to pass legislation so the matter does not end up before the court. But as with abortion rights, if Congress cannot agree, then inevitably the courts are thrust into the issue.

Perhaps someone will file a case on behalf of the migrants, alleging deprivation of rights to seek asylum. That would be an entirely different matter before the court.

If the US politicians decide to violate human rights, then it should withdraw from the treaty. Not ruling that some rights will need to be observed and some don't need to for opportunistic reasons. It's like with pregnancy, either you are or you aren't, you can't be a bit pregnant.

Asking for asylum is a fundamental human right thus can't be denied on the grounds of inconvenience or looking for some kind of lope hole.

Dutchy wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

That's correct - it's become US policy and has indeed been defended by the courts.

And that's exactly why politicians should not appoint judges. It is against the Trias Politica of the French philosopher Montesquieu.

Better than many state systems, where judges are elected by the people.

Might blow your mind to learn that Sandra Day O'Connor was considered the final political appointee to the Supreme Court - the majority of her experience was as AZ house majority leader. This was a more common path to becoming a justice in the Reagan years and before. The tradition of appointing professional jurists to the court is a relatively new one.

bluecrew wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

That's correct - it's become US policy and has indeed been defended by the courts.

And that's exactly why politicians should not appoint judges. It is against the Trias Politica of the French philosopher Montesquieu.

Better than many state systems, where judges are elected by the people.

Only just a little bit better. You want judges to be impartial and weigh the arguments and put them in the right context, not because he or she was elected on a promise to convict as many as possible. That's also why the jury system is fundamentally flawed, justice should not be passed on feelings. That's why the US is ranked 26th and the Dutch is among the best (although it has its flaws), ranked 5th.

Dutchy wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And that's exactly why politicians should not appoint judges. It is against the Trias Politica of the French philosopher Montesquieu.

Better than many state systems, where judges are elected by the people.

Only just a little bit better. You want judges to be impartial and weigh the arguments and put them in the right context, not because he or she was elected on a promise to convict as many as possible. That's also why the jury system is fundamentally flawed, justice should not be passed on feelings. That's why the US is ranked 26th and the Dutch is among the best (although it has its flaws), ranked 5th.

Not arguing with you, but hey, it can get a little more dystopian. Trump appointed an average of 61 judges per year versus Obama's 41, including more federal court of appeals judges than the entire Obama presidency... so the judiciary is well and truly stocked with the type of appointees they make fun of on TV shows like The Good Fight.