Delusional. It was bipartisan for a reason, that is until Trump didn't want it to pass so he could continue using it as a campaign issue. It even had strict provisions related to asylum which is why a few Democrats turned against it.
1. The bill had as mentioned before stricter asylum rules, making it harder for people to qualify.
2. Faster processing.
3. Emergency powers for the government to restrict border crossings at times where the border was overcrowded.
4. Increased funding for technology, infrastructure, and personnel to the border.
It would have been one of the most significant immigration reform efforts in decades. But keep eating up the propaganda and sipping the kool aid.

thread title makes me laugh. no, i do not want lefties fleeing the US when trump wins to come to Canada. haha
weve got enough of them here already.

threads like this give me hope because i hate the way people dismiss this discussion for the sake of not being viewed as racist.

This post was edited by C4NTWO on Aug 29 2024 01:55pm

Like I said... the DEMS don't need a bill to do that. A few executive orders would work just as well.

Things that require additional funding, an EO cannot provide. They are also temporary in nature and subject to challenges in court. It would not provide the lasting benefit of what should have been an easily passed bipartisan bill, i.e. Daca.

Funding for what, a plane ticket to bring them from South America to the United States?
Because that's what Biden is doing now.
How did Trump shut the border down with executive action alone, before Biden rescinded those orders?
Having a Quota that guaranteed 12,000 illegal entries a day, that being only the number contacted by border patrol, was the thing that killed that bill.

Yep.
12,000 a day is 360,000 per month and 4.3 million/year.

1. Changes to "credible fear" standards were already in effect.
2. Faster processing for claims that will end up rejected and with limited prospects for eventual removal. This gets down to the core criticism against Democratic border policy. They are frankly unwilling to find and deport illegal immigrants.
3. Emergency powers that kick in when annual crossings exceed an annualized ~1.5 million per year. What's incredible is that even when the border shutdown is in effect, there's a mandate to continue processing 1400 per day!
4. Why don't you summarize for us what proportion of the bill goes towards walls and surveillance, how much goes to Democratic cities via FEMA, and how much goes to paying for an army of asylum officers. I already know the answer.

The bill sees unregulated border crossings between ports of entry as the principle concern, and it's solution is to funnel migrants through ports of entry, and then process and release them pending final immigration / asylum proceedings. The problem is that that's not our main problem. Our problem is that millions of migrants are incentivized to come into the country knowing that they're highly unlikely (per Biden ICE policy) to actually be deported, irrespective of whether they're eventually issued an order of removal, the vast majority of whom will be https://theintercept.com/2023/07/13/ice-immigration-biden-deportation-trump/. The solution to that was and is "Remain in Mexico", a successful solution of the previous administration which the Biden administration dismantled. Failing that, Congress should significantly expand detention capabilities and eliminate the "alternatives to detention" program so that asylum claimants can be summarily removed when their claims are eventually denied.

yes
open borders
yes

This post was edited by 18nomaUSEast on Aug 29 2024 05:04pm

An EO is clearly not comprehensive as and a permanent plan. If Trump wanted a permanent fix, guess who had full control of the House and Senate for two years?
Sounds like a perfect opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Now here they are blocking a bipartisan bill that would improve the border security.
Republicans just like playing politics and spreading propaganda, not protecting the border. Just like you right now with that 12,000 number.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/unraveling-misinformation-about-bipartisan-immigration-bill/



See the post above, with your guys's bullshit claims.



1. It raised the standards significantly, requiring a higher likelihood of winning an asylum case.
2. Just false, remember Obama's record deportations? Funding would indeed have assisted in actual deportations, as well as help handle cases more efficiently.
3. Entirely inaccurate. Emergency powers triggered at specific thresholds, 5,000 a day over seven days, or 8,500 in a single day. It wasn't about annualized numbers but surges that would threaten control and safety.
4. Just a baseless claim, the funding was not being diverted to unrelated areas.

The bill is a much more balanced and humane approach (though still strict which is why a few Democrats opposed it), compared to simply expanding detention centers, and 'Remain in Mexico' wasn't sustainable.

1. Why don't you link the text. I'm getting the sense that you've never bothered to scan through the actual bill.
2. Processing asylum claims faster does not help you deport anyone unless you are willing to have ICE to deport illegal aliens.
3. Yes, 5000 per day averaged over 7 days. What is 5000 x 7 x 52?
4.


The current approach is to funnel migrants through ports of entry and release them. The bill is hyper focused on that. The problem is that the vast majority of those are going to have to be deported, and the administration has specifically instructed ICE to deprioritize that majority. The message is clear, once you're in you're in. We hear that from the migrants themselves via reporters. If you want to stop the human smuggling, the drugs, and the crime, you need to be willing to actively enforce immigration law already on the books. Biden and Harris aren't.