2024 Border Legislation

[temporal1]

HK:
.. Biden does not need this bill to close the border.

If he had the political will he could close the border quite easily without this new piece of legislation.

What it comes down to is, Biden doesn't desire to stanch the flow of illegal immigration
and Republicans don't desire to give him Ukraine/Israel aid in return for powers he doesn't need.

The whole episode is a charade for both sides.

A continuation of decades of politics. My sense is, it goes back further than 30 years.

This is the price of “democracy,” politicians are keenly aware they may be voted out. This is why some envy/admire dictators.
PICK YOUR POISON?

It helps me to accept turmoil and awkwardness in a system that values freedoms. The alternatives appear “EFFICIENT” in varying ways, BUT, at a high cost. Suffering and failure.

“The people” who vote play a role. It boggles the mind, but, career politicians are voted in. VOTED IN FOR DECADES.

In any event, the migrants are now being delivered, First Class, to EVERYONE’S doorstep, i’m anticipating there may be some changes just ahead. Loads of people have (now, obviously) never given a thought to what the southern states have been experiencng all along.

i’m distraught it had to come to this. it’s horrible.

In my view, when disaster strikes ANY U.S. state (not just the East Coast) - there should be voluntary, nonpartisan, generous support from ALL 50 states, NOT expecting federal government to magically “do it all,” but through churches, communities, individuals, first responders, i.e., “each in his own way, his own words” .. as we witnessed in NYC, D.C., Boston, Florida, Atlanta, Katrina, etc.

This “should have” been happening from the start - decades ago.

- - - - - - -

The thing about God’s amazing design is, He designs for DO OVERS.
As-if He knew we wouldn’t get things right the first time. As-if He knew we would stumble+fail. As-if He didn’t worship efficiency!
God could have designed for efficiency. He didn’t. Of all His creation, mankind is best proof of that.

God’s message: Get up and begin again. As many times as required. He’s waiting.

DO OVERS.

[Ernie]

I agree that this is a bad move for Republicans and it makes them look like hypocrites. Both sides though are playing politics. The bolded part of your post though seems to miss the Democratic politicking going on; Biden does not need this bill to close the border. If he had the political will he could close the border quite easily without this new piece of legislation. What it comes down to is, Biden doesn't desire to stanch the flow of illegal immigration and Republicans don't desire to give him Ukraine/Israel aid in return for powers he doesn't need. The whole episode is a charade for both sides.

Could Biden "shut down the border" with current resources and how could he go about it legally? Why didn't Trump shut down the border if he had the power to do so?

Which of the following is not needed in order for him to shut down the border, and process asylum requests within 6 months.

President Biden is requesting funding for a hiring surge at the Homeland Security Department and other immigration-related agencies, sending the ask as part of a larger $106 billion emergency spending package that would primarily support foreign allies.

The White House is seeking $13.6 billion to hire nearly 6,000 employees at DHS and the Justice Department, saying the resources are necessary to keep the Southwest border secure and restrict the flow of fentanyl into the county. The ask marks a significantly ramped up approach from the Biden administration, which has previously pushed for smaller increases to its immigration and border security workforce.

Under the request, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would gain 1,600 new asylum officers, Border Patrol would net 1,300 new agents, Customs and Border Protection would see 1,000 new officers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement would add 1,470 attorneys. The latter hiring would accompany 375 immigration judges within Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review and support staff for each of them. All told in the president’s immigration and border security request, Biden is seeking about $8.7 billion for DHS, $1.7 billion for Justice and $3 billion spread between the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and State, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development.

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2023/ ... st/391402/

[HondurasKeiser]

Could Biden "shut down the border" with current resources and how could he go about it legally?

Yes, he could.

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides, “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens.” Biden simply chooses not to use it.

And the new emergency power the president touts in his statement would only kick in after the arrival of more than 5,000 illegal aliens a day. That’s more than 1.8 million illegal aliens a year, something this administration would treat as a target, rather than a trigger. And it includes aliens admitted through the (unlawful) cell-phone-app system, thus effectively granting a congressional blessing to the administration’s abuse of the parole authority.

Another provision of the deal (as reported by Bill Melugin of Fox News): “Mandatory detention of all single adults.” Again, detention of all border-jumpers is already mandated by current law, which says that any alien who is “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted … shall be detained.” What’s more, this administration has asked for progressively less money each year for detention, has terminated contracts with private firms and local governments to provide detention space, and is closing a 2,000-bed detention center in California that’s virtually empty.

Other measures reportedly considered include green cards for certain illegal aliens, shortening the time illegal asylum applicants have to wait before getting work permits, and funding for sanctuary cities like New York, which have been burdened by the arrival of thousands of migrants. It would appear to do nothing to rein in the president’s abuse of asylum, mandate deportation of illegal migrants already here, crack down on fraud, or penalize countries that won’t take back their own citizens (a problem even for a border-hawk administration).

Why didn't Trump shut down the border if he had the power to do so?

Your question assumes he actually wanted to. If Trump has proved anything about himself these past 9 years, it's that what he says he wants and what he does, don't always map very well. Nevertheless:

Biden suspended Trump’s highly successful “Remain in Mexico” program, which required border-jumping asylum applicants to await their hearings on the other side of the US frontier. He repealed Trump’s rule requiring asylum-seekers to apply in countries they passed through before reaching the US border. He has dramatically slashed deportations of illegal and criminal aliens. He has abused the narrow emergency “parole” power to release (and give work permits to) more than 1 million illegal aliens. He has converted a border-traffic-management app into a tool for foreigners to schedule their illegal immigration through ports of entry. And more.

The result is precisely what the outgoing Team Trump warned the incoming Biden appointees about during the transition: an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration. Under this administration, there have been about 8.5 million “encounters” (to use the euphemism du jour) of inadmissible aliens at US borders. Some of those are repeat crossers, and not all got in. For a time, Biden partially kept in place the Trump-era Title 42 public-health order allowing the immediate expulsion of border jumpers. But more than 3 million illegal aliens have been taken into custody and then released into the homeland under Biden. In addition, another 2 million or more “gotaways” were detected but not captured by Border Patrol, mainly because overwhelmed agents have been reassigned from patrolling the border to “processing” illegal aliens into the country. Compact

[Josh]

How about they just start using an expulsion power now for every illegal crossing?

They need more personnel, more funding, and more authority. There are laws they need to follow for expulsion.

There are legal ports of entry all over the place. Anyone seeking to enter (including asylum seekers) may enter there.

But that is not where Coyotes are dropping people off.

Then a law can be passed allowing the expulsions and providing funding. There is no need to first allow 1.3 million illegals into the country.

The fact coyotes drop them off other places is irrelevant. If they are immediately expelled when entering illegally. The amount of illegal entries will go way down.

I do not understand why it’s such a bad thing to expect entrants and migrants to use legal ports of entry.

[Grace]

Congress has received a disturbing letter from numerous former FBI agents about Biden’s open southern border invasion and the large number of young military age men, from enemy nations entering.

Military age men from across the globe, many from countries or regions not friendly to the United States, are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands – not by splashing ashore from a ship or parachuting from a plane bur rather by foot across a border that has been accurately advertised around the world as largely unprotected with ready access granted.

https://highlandcountypress.com/news/re ... #gsc.tab=0

https://gazette.com/news/wex/retired-fb ... 3ff3d.html

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/f ... ant-crisis

[Ken]

Congress has received a disturbing letter from numerous former FBI agents about Biden’s open southern border invasion and the large number of young military age men, from enemy nations entering.

Military age men from across the globe, many from countries or regions not friendly to the United States, are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands – not by splashing ashore from a ship or parachuting from a plane bur rather by foot across a border that has been accurately advertised around the world as largely unprotected with ready access granted.

https://highlandcountypress.com/news/re ... #gsc.tab=0

https://gazette.com/news/wex/retired-fb ... 3ff3d.html

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/f ... ant-crisis

Military-age just means age 18-40.

Which has ALWAYS been the most common age of migrants going back decades and centuries. This is nothing new. They are just using the phrase "military age" to make it sound different from migration in past decades. It's not.

[Szdfan]

Congress has received a disturbing letter from numerous former FBI agents about Biden’s open southern border invasion and the large number of young military age men, from enemy nations entering.

Military age men from across the globe, many from countries or regions not friendly to the United States, are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands – not by splashing ashore from a ship or parachuting from a plane bur rather by foot across a border that has been accurately advertised around the world as largely unprotected with ready access granted.

https://highlandcountypress.com/news/re ... #gsc.tab=0

https://gazette.com/news/wex/retired-fb ... 3ff3d.html

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/f ... ant-crisis

Military-age just means age 18-40.

Which has ALWAYS been the most common age of migrants going back decades and centuries. This is nothing new. They are just using the phrase "military age" to make it sound different from migration in past decades. It's not.

Migration is not an invasion, because by definition, an "invasion" occurs when the military of one country uses force to seize territory from another country.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/18/im ... -invasion/

As a matter of logic and common sense, the equation of illegal migration and invasion makes little sense. Invasion involves large-scale use of force (or at least threat of force) to seize territory. Russia's attack on Ukraine is an invasion. Migrants crossing a border in search of freedom and opportunity are not. We do, of course, have metaphorical uses of the word "invasion," as with "invasion of privacy" or even the 1960s "British Invasion" of UK rock music. But such metaphorical uses should not be conflated with literal ones. Claims that immigration is a kind of "invasion" are about the latter.

It might be argued that any illegal movement from one place to another qualifies as an "invasion." By that standard, however, an invasion occurs anytime someone smuggles in contraband, violates tariff regulations, and so on. In the pre-Civil War era, some states, such as Indiana, enacted laws banning the in-migration of free blacks from other states. But it would be absurd to claim that black migrants who violated these laws were thereby "invading."

Similarly, one can argue that an "invasion" occurs anytime at least some migrants engage in violence (as in the case of drug cartels operating in the border area, for example). But by that standard, one state has "invaded" another anytime criminals cross a state border to engage in any violent action. A real "invasion" requires a large-scale attack on the territorial or political authority of the state. Small-scale, nonpolitical private violence doesn't qualify. The latter can, of course, still be dealt with by normal law enforcement actions. But it doesn't justify large-scale use of military force of the kind that can be used to respond to an invasion.

Futhermore, the Courts have ruled that migration does not count as invasion under Article IV of the Constitution.

https://www.justsecurity.org/91543/immi ... 20invasion.

In the 1990s, multiple states raised Article IV invasion claims, primarily for the purpose of compelling the federal government to reduce immigrant flows or provide additional funds to states to pay for the strain on state resources caused by large numbers of migrants. The uniform response of the courts was to find that such claims present a non-justiciable political question, see e.g., the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Chiles v. United States.

But at least three courts went further to hold in the alternative that, as the Second Circuit put it in Padavan v. United States, “In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government.”

Unless the influx of migrants are an invading army seeking to militarily overthrow the US Government, calling migration and "invasion" is just political rhetoric.

[mike]

Unless the influx of migrants are an invading army seeking to militarily overthrow the US Government, calling migration and "invasion" is just political rhetoric.

I would agree. Kind of how calling Jan 6 an insurrection is just political rhetoric.

[Grace]

Migration is not an invasion, because by definition, an "invasion" occurs when the military of one country uses force to seize territory from another country.


Unless the influx of migrants are an invading army seeking to militarily overthrow the US Government, calling migration and "invasion" is just political rhetoric.

Although your definition is correct, the definition of "invasion" is broader than that.

Some other definitions of "invasion"

"an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way:"
"an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity,"
"the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful."
"the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful".
"the act of entering a place in large numbers especially in a way that is harmful or unwanted."

Ten thousand migrants crossing into the country in one day, is an "invasion".

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... h/invasion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invasion
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/invasion

[Grace]

Unless the influx of migrants are an invading army seeking to militarily overthrow the US Government, calling migration and "invasion" is just political rhetoric.

I would agree. Kind of how calling Jan 6 an insurrection is just political rhetoric.

Good answer. There is a lot of political rhetoric flying around these days. But pointing out the fact that on some days there are 10,000 migrants "invading" the border, is not political rhetoric, but the truth.