2024 Border Legislation

[Ken]

His wall which Mexico was supposed to pay for that most border experts say does nothing to address the primary issues facing immigration and border security (most drugs pass right through regular ports of entry).

I think you're conflating several different border problems and their potential solutions:
1. People entering illegally, not through legal ports of entry.
2. People entering illegally through legal ports of entry.
3. Illegal goods (or in the case of drugs, bads) entering through legal ports of entry.
4. Illegal goods (and bads) entering outside legal ports of entry.

A physical barrier that forces basically all land traffic through legal ports of entry would curb 1 and 4, allowing security to be concentrated at ports of entry, where they can do a more efficient and effective job of controlling illegal attempts at entry. This is only logical, regardless of who is promoting it.

Mexico would have to crack down on trebuchets, but that's not really land traffic, strictly speaking.

I was just pointing out that Trump basically had FOUR main policy initiatives related to immigration. Three out of the four were objectively failures. And the 4th, the Title 42 COVID emergency closures were unique in time and place and not something that can be repeated short of another pandemic. As for the utility of a wall. There has been volumes written about that.

It is also not at all as Grace says, just a matter of signing orders with a pen. Any sort of policy change needs to be implemented which requires funding and new regulations. You want to process asylum claims faster and expel people faster? That requires LOTS of new asylum officers and laws that streamline the process. You want to do massive deportations as Trump is talking about in his campaign speeches? That is going to require a MASSIVE investment in every aspect of the system from immigration officers to find people to detention centers to hold them to immigration courts to actually process and issue the eviction orders. None of that happens with the stroke of a pen.

For example, Governor Abbott of TX recently passed new STATE laws making immigration violations a STATE crime. Just today on the news I heard interviews with border county sheriffs who said the whole thing was ridiculous because they had no capacity to implement it. If they arrest anyone for a new state immigration violation that means they need a jail to hold them, courts to hear the case, public defenders and translators to assist since right to counsel is a constitutional right, doctors to treat any detainees they are holding who have medical issues, etc. etc. And none of the border counties have any capacity to do any of that, or budgets to pay for any of it so the costs would be carried by local taxpayers. In short, the whole thing is just a big fiasco.

[Grace]

tt is also not at all as Grace says, just a matter of signing orders with a pen. Any sort of policy change needs to be implemented which requires funding and new regulations. You want to process asylum claims faster and expel people faster? That requires LOTS of new asylum officers and laws that streamline the process. You want to do massive deportations as Trump is talking about in his campaign speeches? That is going to require a MASSIVE investment in every aspect of the system from immigration officers to find people to detention centers to hold them to immigration courts to actually process and issue the eviction orders. None of that happens with the stroke of a pen.

It is true that Biden's executive orders, done by a stroke of a pen, created the crisis at the Border, now needs more funding, regulations, more officers, more laws, etc. In other words Biden created this mess, now he wants us to think he is a hero for cleaning up his own mess. And that the crisis was either Trump's fault, or the Republicans fault. And they can tout that Trump's border plans didn't work. But the American people can look at the numbers of people coming across the border in the last three years, versus between 2016 and 2020 and see the truth. Yet Biden and his lemmings think we are to stupid to figure that out.

https://cis.org/Report/Bidens-Executive ... ion-Policy

[Moses]

For almost three years the Biden administration was saying the border is secure, but now we are in an election year, they realize their lie isn’t flying with the American people anymore. So now Biden is telling people he needs more power, which is another lie. Under the federal 8USC-1182 F act any president can suspend the entry of any or all classes of illegal aliens. This act has been used numerous times by past presidents curb illegal migration. Even Obama used this act.

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.

You are categorically incorrect. 1182(f) states:

(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

There are other provisions allowing the President to waive the regular inadmissibility provisions, but 1182(f) relates to suspending entry, not allowing entry.

[Ken]

For almost three years the Biden administration was saying the border is secure, but now we are in an election year, they realize their lie isn’t flying with the American people anymore. So now Biden is telling people he needs more power, which is another lie. Under the federal 8USC-1182 F act any president can suspend the entry of any or all classes of illegal aliens. This act has been used numerous times by past presidents curb illegal migration. Even Obama used this act.

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.

You are categorically incorrect. 1182(f) states:

(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

There are other provisions allowing the President to waive the regular inadmissibility provisions, but 1182(f) relates to suspending entry, not allowing entry.

Capital and lower case letters actually have meaning when citing statutes.

[Moses]

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.

You are categorically incorrect. 1182(f) states:

(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

There are other provisions allowing the President to waive the regular inadmissibility provisions, but 1182(f) relates to suspending entry, not allowing entry.

Capital and lower case letters actually have meaning when citing statutes.

Your point being?

[ohio jones]

Capital and lower case letters actually have meaning when citing statutes.

And which paragraph did you think Grace was referencing?
1182(a)(2)(F)
1182(a)(3)(F)
1182(a)(6)(F)
1182(m)(2)(F)
1182(n)(1)(F)
1182(n)(2)(F)
1182(n)(5)(F)
1182(t)(15)(F)
Because without the intervening lowercase letter and number, it seems logical to resolve the ambiguity by considering that the (f) was mistakenly capitalized. Especially since 1182(f) actually says what Grace says it says.

[Grace]

Capital and lower case letters actually have meaning when citing statutes.

And which paragraph did you think Grace was referencing?
1182(a)(2)(F)
1182(a)(3)(F)
1182(a)(6)(F)
1182(m)(2)(F)
1182(n)(1)(F)
1182(n)(2)(F)
1182(n)(5)(F)
1182(t)(15)(F)
Because without the intervening lowercase letter and number, it seems logical to resolve the ambiguity by considering that the (f) was mistakenly capitalized. Especially since 1182(f) actually says what Grace says it says.

Oops...so I should have used a lower case f ?

[Moses]

Capital and lower case letters actually have meaning when citing statutes.

And which paragraph did you think Grace was referencing?
1182(a)(2)(F)
1182(a)(3)(F)
1182(a)(6)(F)
1182(m)(2)(F)
1182(n)(1)(F)
1182(n)(2)(F)
1182(n)(5)(F)
1182(t)(15)(F)
Because without the intervening lowercase letter and number, it seems logical to resolve the ambiguity by considering that the (f) was mistakenly capitalized. Especially since 1182(f) actually says what Grace says it says.

Oops...so I should have used a lower case f ?

Yes, with parentheses around it. However, the way you wrote it was clear enough that anyone could figure out what you meant if they wanted to.
Ken was even further off when he claimed that 1182 F is a provision allowing the president to admit otherwise inadmissible aliens. Using his logic that Republicans are lying if they refer to 1182 F [instead of 1182(f)], I have to conclude that his interpretation of a claimed 1182 F is a "pants-on-fire" whopper. I guess he's feeling desperate for some reason.

[Ernie]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68613083

Does the Mexican president truly consider deporting people from Texas to Mexico as dehumanizing? I can see ways that it is dehumanizing, (depending on a person's reason for crossing the border at places other than ports of entry) but I'm wondering if the Mexican president believes this in his heart of hearts.

[Szdfan]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68613083

Does the Mexican president truly consider deporting people from Texas to Mexico as dehumanizing? I can see ways that it is dehumanizing, (depending on a person's reason for crossing the border at places other than ports of entry) but I'm wondering if the Mexican president believes this in his heart of hearts.

Since none of us know what is in the heart of the Mexican President, but I'm not sure how any of us can answer that question.

I think one of the aspects that this legislation is dehumanizing is that 40% of the Texas population is Latino and American citizens are at risk of being targeted by police officers looking for undocumented immigrants and having to prove that they are citizens.