2024 Border Legislation

[Szdfan]

Incredibly, Republicans shut down a bill that gave them a lot of what they wanted on a critical national issue because their presumptive nominee wanted to use it as a campaign issue.

Republicans deny that. If the bill were "stand alone" it would have stood a chance, but that wasn't the case.

Stand alone from what? It's the Republicans who linked funding for Ukraine and Israel to this bill. It's what they insisted on and when they basically got what they wanted, they dumped it.

[Grace]

Did you even read the section of Federal Law that you just cited? First, none of it applies to asylum claims. Second, the chapter of law you cited sets out certain classes of inadmissible aliens: Those with infectious diseases, those with multiple convictions, drug traffickers, terrorists, etc. and then the paragraph (F) that you cite grants the authority to waive those prohibitions. In other words, it is the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim. It allows the Administration to waive the restrictions and let prohibited people enter anyway if there are reasons to do so. Like say a drug kingpin who is turning state's evidence and testifying against others and needs to do so in a US courtroom.

If you are reading Republican talking points and this is what the are writing, then they are lying to you.

Sections F says;

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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 as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Has Biden ever been honest with the American people? Does he not know about that new technology called video and audio recording? I know his memory is gone, so maybe he should go watch videos of him bragging about getting rid of Trumps border policies that at the time were working.

Bottom line, we didn’t have a border crisis when Biden came into office, and now we do. The laws haven’t changed, but the President in charge of enforcing them did.

Add to that the measures in the bill would not only continue the border crisis but would also make it more difficult for any future enforcement-minded President to fix.

[Ken]

That is not what 8 USC-1182 F says. You might be quoting some other provision of law but not that. You can google this or any other citation of law and find the actual provision. For example

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Scroll down to paragraph F and you will see it is as I described.

[Grace]

That is not what 8 USC-1182 F says. You might be quoting some other provision of law but not that. You can google this or any other citation of law and find the actual provision. For example

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Scroll down to paragraph F and you will see it is as I described.

I looked through 8 USC-1182 F (212F) from a government site, but the same paragraph is in your link. Halfway though the act it says

"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 as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Section 212(f) of the act does give the President the authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows a President to stop the entry of any aliens or all aliens of any class to the country. It also gives him the authority to place restrictions on the entry of any class of aliens temporarily, if he determines that the entry of would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.

[HondurasKeiser]

That is not what 8 USC-1182 F says. You might be quoting some other provision of law but not that. You can google this or any other citation of law and find the actual provision. For example

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Scroll down to paragraph F and you will see it is as I described.

I looked through 8 USC-1182 F (212F) from a government site, but the same paragraph is in your link. Halfway though the act it says

"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 as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

I think she's correct, Ken. A Dispatch essay, critical of Republicans, nevertheless quoted the same thing:

Some Republicans have argued that Section 212(f) of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act is a catchall provision that allows the president to fix the problem of illegal immigration and the abuse of the asylum system. That provision of law states: “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.”

I am more and more leaning towards your and SZD's position that the Republicans are playing stupid politics with this one, shooting themselves in the foot and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory simply because they dare not offend Trump's MAGA base. Though there are some smart, non-MAGA pundits that make a good case for this was a bad bill for Republicans irrespective of Trump and his whims.

[Jazman]

Did you even read the section of Federal Law that you just cited? First, none of it applies to asylum claims. Second, the chapter of law you cited sets out certain classes of inadmissible aliens: Those with infectious diseases, those with multiple convictions, drug traffickers, terrorists, etc. and then the paragraph (F) that you cite grants the authority to waive those prohibitions. In other words, it is the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim. It allows the Administration to waive the restrictions and let prohibited people enter anyway if there are reasons to do so. Like say a drug kingpin who is turning state's evidence and testifying against others and needs to do so in a US courtroom.

If you are reading Republican talking points and this is what the are writing, then they are lying to you.

Sections F says;

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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 as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Has Biden ever been honest with the American people? Does he not know about that new technology called video and audio recording? I know his memory is gone, so maybe he should go watch videos of him bragging about getting rid of Trumps border policies that at the time were working.

Bottom line, we didn’t have a border crisis when Biden came into office, and now we do. The laws haven’t changed, but the President in charge of enforcing them did.

Add to that the measures in the bill would not only continue the border crisis but would also make it more difficult for any future enforcement-minded President to fix.

So it's all Biden's fault...? I assume this is being channeled from the right of center mainstream media... Looks like deflection to me..., considering what the GOP has done/not done in the past and in the present, especially the last week or so...
In response to the framing attempt, which is probably a copy of your media's framing (I welcome your correction if your media diet is not pushing this) - but What about the migrant caravan(s) 'invading' during the Trump presidency? Immigration, including lots of crossings, etc, same as now! was happening then too. (Why did Trump admin do the drastic family separation scheme if they weren't trying to deal with some big problem!) How does that square with the attempt to frame this as Trump in office = less immigration problems or fixed vs Biden in office = immigration disaster?

[Jazman]

That is not what 8 USC-1182 F says. You might be quoting some other provision of law but not that. You can google this or any other citation of law and find the actual provision. For example

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Scroll down to paragraph F and you will see it is as I described.

I looked through 8 USC-1182 F (212F) from a government site, but the same paragraph is in your link. Halfway though the act it says

"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 as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

I think she's correct, Ken. A Dispatch essay, critical of Republicans, nevertheless quoted the same thing:

Some Republicans have argued that Section 212(f) of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act is a catchall provision that allows the president to fix the problem of illegal immigration and the abuse of the asylum system. That provision of law states: “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.”

I am more and more leaning towards your and SZD's position that the Republicans are playing stupid politics with this one, shooting themselves in the foot and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory simply because they dare not offend Trump's MAGA base. Though there are some smart, non-MAGA pundits that make a good case for this was a bad bill for Republicans irrespective of Trump and his whims.

I wonder if Trump et al have considered the possibility of blow-back from quarters that he may be trying to win over, who realize that a chance to fix some things or at least attempt to, have been nixed by his inserting himself? Why wouldn't Haley take that up and run with it? (Imo She should if she wants to stay in the race...) There is such a thing as trying to be 'too clever' sometimes...

[Ken]

That is not what 8 USC-1182 F says. You might be quoting some other provision of law but not that. You can google this or any other citation of law and find the actual provision. For example

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Scroll down to paragraph F and you will see it is as I described.

I looked through 8 USC-1182 F (212F) from a government site, but the same paragraph is in your link. Halfway though the act it says

"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 as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

I think she's correct, Ken. A Dispatch essay, critical of Republicans, nevertheless quoted the same thing:

Some Republicans have argued that Section 212(f) of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act is a catchall provision that allows the president to fix the problem of illegal immigration and the abuse of the asylum system. That provision of law states: “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.”

I am more and more leaning towards your and SZD's position that the Republicans are playing stupid politics with this one, shooting themselves in the foot and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory simply because they dare not offend Trump's MAGA base. Though there are some smart, non-MAGA pundits that make a good case for this was a bad bill for Republicans irrespective of Trump and his whims.

Well, OK. that's a different section of the act. 8 USC 1182 (F) points to something else.

The provision Grace is citing was the authority cited by Trump in 2016 when he implemented his famous "Muslim Ban"

How this all plays out politically I have no idea. But if Democrats can't point to Trump as the reason for why Congress hasn't addressed immigration then they are utterly incompetent in the messaging (which they often are).

By obstructing legislation in Congress, Trump has given Biden a ready-made explanation and answer to anything Trump now says on immigration. Sometimes it is a case of be careful what you ask for. Time will tell if Biden can now lay this issue squarely in the lap of Republicans.

It is similar to the issue of Obamacare back in 2018. Republicans including Trump were opposed to it and tried to obstruct/repeal it, losing in their efforts by just one vote after the GOP house voted a bazillion times to repeal it. The blowback probably cost them the House in the 2018 mid-terms that brought Pelosi to power. Obstruction is not always a winning message when the other side goes out to relentlessly explain what you are doing as happened in 2018. Pretty much every Democrat ran on healthcare in 2018.

[Josh]

The bill explicitly allows 1.3 million illegal alienate just waltz in per year. That’s the real reason there’s opposition to it.

Why is there more funding in the bill for Ukraine and Israel’s border security than America’s?

[Ken]

The bill explicitly allows 1.3 million illegal alienate just waltz in per year. That’s the real reason there’s opposition to it.

Why is there more funding in the bill for Ukraine and Israel’s border security than America’s?

It does nothing of the sort.

And defense funding for Ukraine and Israel is a tiny fraction of what the Pentagon spends every year on defense. Plus, the budget for Homeland Security is already over $100 billion. This is just supplemental money for things like hiring more immigration agents and asylum officers. And changes in the law to more efficiently process and expel asylum seekers.

In fact, most of the proposed spending for Ukraine is actually dollars spent in the US. All the weapons and ammunition that would be included are things built by American workers in American factories. The money never leaves the US, it is just the finished products that are shipped overseas.
Should the money be spent on other things like schools and hospitals? Perhaps. But that is a different question.