2024 Border Legislation

[Ken]

You know, it would seem the wrong venue to determine if an insurrection happened in DC is some state court in Colorado.

A state court in Colorado is exactly the correct place for Colorado Republicans to challenge whether Trump is eligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot.

And Trump is within his rights to appeal their decision to a higher court.

That is how our system works.

[Josh]

You know, it would seem the wrong venue to determine if an insurrection happened in DC is some state court in Colorado.

A state court in Colorado is exactly the correct place for Colorado Republicans to challenge whether Trump is eligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot.

Yes, that's correct.

And Trump is within his rights to appeal their decision to a higher court.

That is how our system works.

Also correct. But that has nothing to do with securing the idea that Trump was guilty of an insurrection or not. A civil case has very different rules of evidence than an actual criminal trial.

The venue for criminal trials of sitting Presidents is Congress, which some people think to mean a President is "above the law"; in reality, he is simply subject to the law of ⅔ of the Senate deciding whether to convict or not, much as in other criminal trials it takes a unanimous jury*.

* Some jurisdictions don't require it to be unaminous.

[Ernie]

back to the topic please...

[Ernie]

Can somebody please point me to the law(s) that authorize the President to do what they have not done in recent decades (shutting down the border in between ports of entry) and point me to the law(s) that keeps Presidents from shutting down the border. Republicans say the President can (even though Republican Presidents have not) and Democrats say that laws need to be passed that give Presidents this authority.

I'm guessing there is some truth to both sides of the debate, but I don't know what it is.

A similar question could be asked about funding. Why does the Whitehouse say funds are needed to better secure the border, and Republicans aren't eager to supply the funding. Is there money or is there not?

[Ken]

Can somebody please point me to the law(s) that authorize the President to do what they have not done in recent decades (shutting down the border in between ports of entry) and point me to the law(s) that keeps Presidents from shutting down the border. Republicans say the President can (even though Republican Presidents have not) and Democrats say that laws need to be passed that give Presidents this authority.

I'm guessing there is some truth to both sides of the debate, but I don't know what it is.

A similar question could be asked about funding. Why does the Whitehouse say funds are needed to better secure the border, and Republicans aren't eager to supply the funding. Is there money or is there not?

This is the analysis of existing law that you are seeking: https://thehill.com/latino/4437551-bide ... migration/

It is really complicated question and has never really been tested and is complicated by the fact that a lot of border crossings are actually well inside the US which means that by the time you get to the actual border crossing you are actually well within the US and subject to US law. Mexico might be a mile back in the other direction.

NOTE: Shutting down the border is not what it sounds like. No one is proposing actually shutting down the border to all traffic (commercial trucks, American citizens and permanent residents returning from vacation, etc.). American's aren't going to get stuck in Mexico trying to return from that vacation to Puerto Vallarta because the border is "closed". What they are really talking about is a halt in processing asylum and immigration claims. As for whether Biden can do that under present law? Here is detailed discussion on the topic.

As for the current bill in the Senate? It is a 400 page bill that continues to change and be amended: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/i ... l_text.pdf

From the news coverage it seems to do the following things

1. Raise the legal bar for claiming asylum by changing the definition of "credible fear" and providing for expedited removal of those who fail to meet the standard.

2. Provides and additional $3.99 billion provided for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to hire 4,338 asylum officers to expedite asylum hearings.

3. Allow asylum officers not judges to grant or refuse asylum immediately to prevent waiting long waiting periods for immigration court dates

4. End the practice of allowing applicants to live in the US while they wait for their cases to be heard by an immigration judge. They can get an immediate hearing by an officer (not a judge) or wait outside the US for a their turn to come up in an immigration court in front of a judge.

5. Instant work permits for parolees so they aren't sitting around in shelters in big cities unable to work and find housing

6. Adds 50,000 green cards over 5 years (for skilled workers on immigrant visas for the tech industry, etc.)

7. $20.23 billion to “address existing operational needs and expand capabilities at our nation’s borders" including more fences, technology, personnel, and equipment to fight fentanyl and other drug trafficking as well as immigration.

8. The legislation would give the secretary of Homeland Security the option to shut down the border if, during a period of seven consecutive days, more than 4,000 encounters are recorded with migrants. If that number reaches 5,000 encounters for a period of seven consecutive days, the U.S. would be required to shut down the border.

Bottom line? If Republicans pull the plug on this due to fealty to Trump who apparently wants a heightened immigration crisis to run on in the fall then no one should ever take anything they ever say on immigration seriously again. It basically contains most of their wish list of policy changes.

[Jazman]

Bottom line? If Republicans pull the plug on this due to fealty to Trump who apparently wants a heightened immigration crisis to run on in the fall[,] then no one should ever take anything they ever say on immigration seriously again. It basically contains most of their wish list of policy changes.

Yeah, I would be interested in hearing from our co-discussers, who have posted lots of anxiousness about the border and an "invasion" etc, who obviously, as I do too, want something done and some things fixed... but they also have, at least historically here, demonstrated a loyalty to the GOP and generally its current leader. I'm curious how they feel about this and/or how their mainstream media portrays it

[Grace]

First of all, Americans want a “border security bill”, not an “immigration mitigation bill”. And that is what the new bill is. However it is better than nothing. Republicans should ask for the bill as a “stand alone” bill and then pass it. But I am sure Biden and the Democrats won’t do that as Biden wants aid for Ukraine attached. He needs to appease Zelensky, as he might reveal the Biden Family corruption in Ukraine.

Secondly Biden blames Trump for the border problem, which is laughable, since we had the lowest illegal migration in the Trump years. We all know that Trump lives in Biden’s head rent free. And beings Biden can't run on his record in an election year, trashing Trump and invoking J-6 is the only thing he has to tout, that might stick.

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.

Biden and the Democrats are not serious about the southern invasion of our border. We can know that from their past actions.

In the first 100 days Biden signed over 90 executive orders to open and incentivize illegal’s to cross the nation’s border. Since that time over 7 million have come. Biden has the authority to end “catch and Release”, title 8 of the U.S. code, with the stroke of a pen, but he won’t do it. Border authorities say that restoring “Remain in Mexico” would reduce the flow by 70%. Biden won't do that. Biden could enter into Asylum co-operatives agreements with other nations. He won’t do it. He could end parole abuses. He won’t do it. He could use expedited removals. He won’t do it. He could issue a proclamation to suspend or restrict any classification under the federal 8USC-1182 F Act. He won’t do it.

Last May the Republicans passed HR-2, the “secure the Border Act” which is now collecting dust on Schumer’s desk. This act had components to solve the border problem, but it went nowhere because Biden would veto it.

If new laws are made, will this administration follow them? From their past record, it is doubtful.

[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.

[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.

Nick Catoggio in the center-right "The Dispatch" (edited by Jonah Goldberg):

Republicans in Congress roadblocked aid to Ukraine last fall on grounds that America shouldn’t worry about another country’s borders before fixing its own. “Fine, let’s do a border bill,” said Democrats, agreeable about immigration enforcement for once. So Lankford, a respected conservative, was dispatched to work something out and ended up brokering a deal with help from the GOP’s favorite independent mediator, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. That deal was solid enough to have received a vote of confidence from the Trump-friendly union of Border Patrol agents on Monday.

Twenty-four hours later, with grassroots populists predictably howling about “betrayal,” the bill looks dead. As I write this, hawkish Senate Republicans are calling for passing a new bill that would fund Ukraine and Israel without addressing immigration—i.e., worrying about other countries’ borders before fixing our own, precisely the thing the GOP initially had wanted to avoid. Having let Ukrainian troops languish in the field for months without resupply as leverage to extract border concessions from the left, Republicans have decided they don’t want those concessions after all and have ended up right back at square one.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said of Republicans after the border deal appeared to collapse. “They literally demanded specific policy, got it, and then killed it.” That’s not quite true; Lankford’s deal was a compromise, not a right-wing wish list. But Schatz is right to find it astounding that the GOP isn’t even making a pretense of wanting to improve the bill in the Senate or the House to try to solve a problem that everyone in the party agrees is an urgent national crisis.

“I'm pretty confident we can do better with a new president who actually will enforce the law,” Cornyn told reporters when asked about his position, which is both deceptive and a non sequitur. It’s a non sequitur because Congress’ duties don’t depend on the president’s willingness to enforce statutes; if anything, the case for legislation is stronger when a president is derelict in his own duty, because it can force his hand. Cornyn’s response is deceptive because Biden does want to crack down on the border before the election, provided he can assure progressives he’s only doing so because Congress has left him no choice.

And Republicans will not “do better” in crafting new immigration laws under Trump. Barring a filibuster-proof GOP majority in the Senate next year, Democrats will make them pay for tanking this deal for such blatantly cynical reasons.

[Grace]

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.