Under Trump, border catch-and-release has dropped 99.99% from worst Biden month

Tobytone said:
No. After Trump ripped the mask off the sanctimonious “our hands are tied” bold-faced lie from the libtard brigade, yep, the same enemies of America who rolled out the red carpet for a parade of criminals, thugs, and millions of skill-less, penniless freeloaders to waltz in and mooch off our welfare dime, endangering countless American lives, we’ve got a deportation extravaganza to orchestrate.

Congress better quit navel-gazing and carve out a fast-track for shipping them all out, while funneling some of those USAID billions (you know, the ones pilfered from taxpayers’ pockets) to Tom Homan so he can super-size ICE into a lean, mean, deporting machine.
Click to expand...
It already exists.
Tobytone said:
Trump needs to keep the military locked and loaded at the border until we’ve got enough agents, a finished wall, and whatever high-tech gizmos they need to stop this madness. Still plenty to do.
Click to expand...
That there is.
Tobytone said:
Good thing we’re not holding our breath for an apology from the dumbass libtard drones.
Click to expand...
They want conservatives do just that, of course. Fuck 'em.
 
archives said:
So the Trump didn’t end the immigration armageddon yet you are boasting he achieved a 99.99% success rate, okie dokie
Click to expand...
Armageddon isn't in the United States, anchovies.

Trump is not allowing an invasion of the United States. Biden, Kamala, and Mayorkas invited an invasion of the United States, which is an act of treason.
 
archives said:
You didn’t answer the question, what law did the last Administration ignore?
Click to expand...
Articles I, II, III, IV of the U.S. Constitution, and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, and 16th amendments, and most of Title 8 of the USC.
archives said:
Laws are nebulous, antiquated, for example those covering asylum and refugee status
Click to expand...
So you advocate lawlessness. Gotit.
 
archives said:
If that is the way you measure success, militarizing the border, but what happens when the next Administration decides to reverse Trump’s EO’s to reprioritize funding toward other programs? What happens if the northern border becomes porous?

As I said, real immigration reform will only come thru Congressional action
Click to expand...
Congress has already acted, anchovies. It's already law. It only needs to be enforced, which is what Trump is doing.
 
archives said:
Combining the Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 with Lankford’s proposal would be a start
Click to expand...


Okay so this is what combining those two things could possibly bring (Though it would not actually force folks with Braindead's opposition to strong borders to actually enforce the laws in place):

Border security reforms:
1. Building a wall (who has suggested that before?)
2. Hiring more agents
3. funding more deportation flights.
4. Introduce a Border Emergency Authority triggered when border encounters average 4,000 daily over seven days (discretionary) or 5,000 daily (mandatory), allowing temporary border shutdowns, excluding unaccompanied minors. (this was the controversial part of this one).
5. Ends "catch and release" by mandating detention and expedited deportation for those who don’t qualify for asylum.

Asylum reforms:
1. Raises the standard for asylum eligibility to close loopholes exploited by cartels, requiring migrants to prove a credible fear of persecution beyond general claims like "fear in my country."
2. Deports migrants with criminal records immediately, those who could have resettled elsewhere, or those who could have found safety within their home country.
3. Hires 4,338 asylum officers to reduce backlogs and speed up screenings.

Legal Immigration Adjustments:
1. Expands green card availability for five years and ensures children of H1-B visa holders remain eligible for green cards after turning 21.
2. Includes provisions from the Afghan Adjustment Act, offering a pathway to conditional permanent residency for Afghan allies who supported U.S. missions.

(not much adjustment there).

Issues with the law:
1. (Biggest issue). The $118 billion package also included aid for Ukraine, Israel, and other allies, which complicated its passage.
2. Despite initial bipartisan support after four months of negotiations, the bill failed in the Senate on procedural votes (43-50 in May 2024) due to opposition from both parties. Republicans, influenced by former President Trump’s call for a complete border shutdown, deemed it insufficient, while some Democrats opposed its strict asylum measures.
3. Lankford faced backlash, including a censure from Oklahoma County Republicans, for provisions critics claimed codified high illegal immigration levels, though he defended it as a step toward enforcement.

(I'm going to finish this in Word from here on and then paste it in here because it is going to take forever with the limited editing of my board... lol).

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013

The 2013 Act, introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer and the bipartisan "Gang of Eight," was a comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate (68-32) but died in the House. Key components included:

  • Border Security:
    • Added up to 40,000 border patrol agents and implemented a Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy, including fencing and E-Verify enhancements.
    • Required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit border security plans before granting legal status to immigrants.
  • Legal Immigration Reforms:
    • Introduced a points-based system for talent-based immigration, new visas for entrepreneurs, and W visas for low-skilled workers.
    • Increased visas for STEM graduates and repealed the Diversity Visa Lottery.
    • Strengthened E-Verify, requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility within five years, and increased penalties for illegal entry and visa fraud.
  • Pathway to Citizenship:
    • Offered Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status to approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants, allowing legal status and eventual citizenship after meeting criteria (e.g., background checks, fines).
    • Included protections for DACA recipients ("Dreamers") and agricultural workers via a new guest worker program replacing H-2A.
  • Economic Impact:
    • The Congressional Budget Office estimated a $197 billion deficit reduction over 10 years and $700 billion by 2033 due to increased economic activity.
  • Challenges:
    • Stalled in the Republican-controlled House due to opposition to its amnesty provisions and preference for piecemeal reforms.


Combining Lankford’s 2024 Proposal with the 2013 Act

Combining these proposals would require balancing the 2024 bill’s enforcement-focused approach with the 2013 Act’s comprehensive reform, including pathways to citizenship. A potential framework could include:

  • Enhanced Border Security:
    • Merge the 2024 bill’s funding for walls, agents, and technology ($20.23 billion) with the 2013 Act’s 40,000 additional border agents and fencing strategies for a robust, multi-layered approach.
    • Retain the 2024 bill’s Border Emergency Authority to manage high crossing volumes, complementing the 2013 Act’s requirement for DHS to secure the border before granting legal status.
  • Asylum and Enforcement Reforms:
    • Adopt the 2024 bill’s stricter asylum standards and expedited deportation processes to address current loopholes, aligning with the 2013 Act’s increased penalties for illegal entry and fraud.
    • Incorporate the 2013 Act’s mandatory E-Verify system to ensure workplace compliance, enhancing the 2024 bill’s focus on ending parole abuse.
  • Legal Immigration and Pathways:
    • Include the 2013 Act’s points-based system, entrepreneur visas, and STEM visa expansions to modernize legal immigration, addressing the 2024 bill’s limited focus on green card increases.
    • Integrate a modified version of the 2013 Act’s RPI program for undocumented immigrants, but with stricter eligibility (e.g., excluding recent arrivals, as critics of the 2024 bill feared it allowed legal status for those present briefly).
    • Retain the 2024 bill’s Afghan Adjustment Act provisions and green card protections for H1-B children, building on the 2013 Act’s focus on humanitarian and family-based immigration.
  • Economic and Humanitarian Balance:
    • Leverage the 2013 Act’s projected economic benefits (deficit reduction) to justify increased funding for the 2024 bill’s enforcement measures.
    • Address progressive concerns by including the 2013 Act’s due-process protections and access to counsel for vulnerable populations, balancing the 2024 bill’s stricter asylum policies.
  • Political Feasibility:
    • Combining the two would face challenges similar to those that stalled both bills: Republican resistance to amnesty (a key 2013 Act feature) and Democratic opposition to harsh enforcement (a 2024 bill critique).
    • A compromise might involve phasing in legal status pathways only after border security metrics are met, as proposed in the 2013 Act, while adopting the 2024 bill’s emergency authority to appease enforcement advocates.
Challenges and Considerations

  • Political Divide: The 2024 bill’s failure, despite bipartisan negotiation, highlights the influence of figures like Trump, who opposed it for not fully closing the border. Combining it with the 2013 Act’s amnesty provisions could deepen Republican opposition.
  • Misconceptions: Posts on X claimed the 2024 bill allowed 5,000 illegal entries daily or granted mass citizenship, which could resurface if combined with the 2013 Act’s RPI program. These would need clear public communication to counter.
  • Scope: The 2013 Act was broader, addressing legal immigration and integration, while the 2024 bill focused on enforcement. Merging them risks creating an unwieldy bill, as seen in the 2024 bill’s $118 billion package tied to foreign aid.
Conclusion

Lankford’s 2024 Border Act focused on immediate border security and asylum reform, while the 2013 Immigration Modernization Act offered a comprehensive overhaul with legal status pathways. Combining them could create a balanced approach, strengthening enforcement while modernizing legal immigration, but would require careful navigation of political divides. A starting point might be pairing the 2024 bill’s emergency authority and asylum reforms with the 2013 Act’s E-Verify and talent-based visa systems, delaying citizenship pathways until border security is verified. However, achieving bipartisan support remains a significant hurdle, as evidenced by both bills’ failures to become law.
 
Into the Night said:
Armageddon isn't in the United States, anchovies.

Trump is not allowing an invasion of the United States. Biden, Kamala, and Mayorkas invited an invasion of the United States, which is an act of treason.
Click to expand...
I know, as I’ve told, it’s “99.99%” corrected, but the Red Hat Club is still posting their apocalyptic forwarnings, so what’s up that?

And the whataboutisms are getting old
 
Damocles said:
Okay so this is what combining those two things could possibly bring (Though it would not actually force folks with Braindead's opposition to strong borders to actually enforce the laws in place):

Border security reforms:
1. Building a wall (who has suggested that before?)
2. Hiring more agents
3. funding more deportation flights.
4. Introduce a Border Emergency Authority triggered when border encounters average 4,000 daily over seven days (discretionary) or 5,000 daily (mandatory), allowing temporary border shutdowns, excluding unaccompanied minors. (this was the controversial part of this one).
5. Ends "catch and release" by mandating detention and expedited deportation for those who don’t qualify for asylum.

Asylum reforms:
1. Raises the standard for asylum eligibility to close loopholes exploited by cartels, requiring migrants to prove a credible fear of persecution beyond general claims like "fear in my country."
2. Deports migrants with criminal records immediately, those who could have resettled elsewhere, or those who could have found safety within their home country.
3. Hires 4,338 asylum officers to reduce backlogs and speed up screenings.

Legal Immigration Adjustments:
1. Expands green card availability for five years and ensures children of H1-B visa holders remain eligible for green cards after turning 21.
2. Includes provisions from the Afghan Adjustment Act, offering a pathway to conditional permanent residency for Afghan allies who supported U.S. missions.

(not much adjustment there).

Issues with the law:
1. (Biggest issue). The $118 billion package also included aid for Ukraine, Israel, and other allies, which complicated its passage.
2. Despite initial bipartisan support after four months of negotiations, the bill failed in the Senate on procedural votes (43-50 in May 2024) due to opposition from both parties. Republicans, influenced by former President Trump’s call for a complete border shutdown, deemed it insufficient, while some Democrats opposed its strict asylum measures.
3. Lankford faced backlash, including a censure from Oklahoma County Republicans, for provisions critics claimed codified high illegal immigration levels, though he defended it as a step toward enforcement.

(I'm going to finish this in Word from here on and then paste it in here because it is going to take forever with the limited editing of my board... lol).

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013

The 2013 Act, introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer and the bipartisan "Gang of Eight," was a comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate (68-32) but died in the House. Key components included:

  • Border Security:
    • Added up to 40,000 border patrol agents and implemented a Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy, including fencing and E-Verify enhancements.
    • Required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit border security plans before granting legal status to immigrants.
  • Legal Immigration Reforms:
    • Introduced a points-based system for talent-based immigration, new visas for entrepreneurs, and W visas for low-skilled workers.
    • Increased visas for STEM graduates and repealed the Diversity Visa Lottery.
    • Strengthened E-Verify, requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility within five years, and increased penalties for illegal entry and visa fraud.
  • Pathway to Citizenship:
    • Offered Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status to approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants, allowing legal status and eventual citizenship after meeting criteria (e.g., background checks, fines).
    • Included protections for DACA recipients ("Dreamers") and agricultural workers via a new guest worker program replacing H-2A.
  • Economic Impact:
    • The Congressional Budget Office estimated a $197 billion deficit reduction over 10 years and $700 billion by 2033 due to increased economic activity.
  • Challenges:
    • Stalled in the Republican-controlled House due to opposition to its amnesty provisions and preference for piecemeal reforms.


Combining Lankford’s 2024 Proposal with the 2013 Act

Combining these proposals would require balancing the 2024 bill’s enforcement-focused approach with the 2013 Act’s comprehensive reform, including pathways to citizenship. A potential framework could include:

  • Enhanced Border Security:
    • Merge the 2024 bill’s funding for walls, agents, and technology ($20.23 billion) with the 2013 Act’s 40,000 additional border agents and fencing strategies for a robust, multi-layered approach.
    • Retain the 2024 bill’s Border Emergency Authority to manage high crossing volumes, complementing the 2013 Act’s requirement for DHS to secure the border before granting legal status.
  • Asylum and Enforcement Reforms:
    • Adopt the 2024 bill’s stricter asylum standards and expedited deportation processes to address current loopholes, aligning with the 2013 Act’s increased penalties for illegal entry and fraud.
    • Incorporate the 2013 Act’s mandatory E-Verify system to ensure workplace compliance, enhancing the 2024 bill’s focus on ending parole abuse.
  • Legal Immigration and Pathways:
    • Include the 2013 Act’s points-based system, entrepreneur visas, and STEM visa expansions to modernize legal immigration, addressing the 2024 bill’s limited focus on green card increases.
    • Integrate a modified version of the 2013 Act’s RPI program for undocumented immigrants, but with stricter eligibility (e.g., excluding recent arrivals, as critics of the 2024 bill feared it allowed legal status for those present briefly).
    • Retain the 2024 bill’s Afghan Adjustment Act provisions and green card protections for H1-B children, building on the 2013 Act’s focus on humanitarian and family-based immigration.
  • Economic and Humanitarian Balance:
    • Leverage the 2013 Act’s projected economic benefits (deficit reduction) to justify increased funding for the 2024 bill’s enforcement measures.
    • Address progressive concerns by including the 2013 Act’s due-process protections and access to counsel for vulnerable populations, balancing the 2024 bill’s stricter asylum policies.
  • Political Feasibility:
    • Combining the two would face challenges similar to those that stalled both bills: Republican resistance to amnesty (a key 2013 Act feature) and Democratic opposition to harsh enforcement (a 2024 bill critique).
    • A compromise might involve phasing in legal status pathways only after border security metrics are met, as proposed in the 2013 Act, while adopting the 2024 bill’s emergency authority to appease enforcement advocates.
Challenges and Considerations

  • Political Divide: The 2024 bill’s failure, despite bipartisan negotiation, highlights the influence of figures like Trump, who opposed it for not fully closing the border. Combining it with the 2013 Act’s amnesty provisions could deepen Republican opposition.
  • Misconceptions: Posts on X claimed the 2024 bill allowed 5,000 illegal entries daily or granted mass citizenship, which could resurface if combined with the 2013 Act’s RPI program. These would need clear public communication to counter.
  • Scope: The 2013 Act was broader, addressing legal immigration and integration, while the 2024 bill focused on enforcement. Merging them risks creating an unwieldy bill, as seen in the 2024 bill’s $118 billion package tied to foreign aid.
Conclusion

Lankford’s 2024 Border Act focused on immediate border security and asylum reform, while the 2013 Immigration Modernization Act offered a comprehensive overhaul with legal status pathways. Combining them could create a balanced approach, strengthening enforcement while modernizing legal immigration, but would require careful navigation of political divides. A starting point might be pairing the 2024 bill’s emergency authority and asylum reforms with the 2013 Act’s E-Verify and talent-based visa systems, delaying citizenship pathways until border security is verified. However, achieving bipartisan support remains a significant hurdle, as evidenced by both bills’ failures to become law.
Click to expand...
So tell us why then those very proposals were killed by the very Republicans who are now echoing the immigration apocalypse
 
archives said:
So tell us why then those very proposals were killed by the very Republicans who are now echoing the immigration apocalypse
Click to expand...
I did in my reasoning above.

Why don't you tell us why the democrats were against them as well? It was bipartisan against that caused both of these things to die.
 
Into the Night said:
History is not a 'whataboutism', anchovies. History is not a 'forwarning' either.
You seem to have a tense problem.
Click to expand...
Certainly isn’t, but the misuse of it is, “Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about ...?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation. Propaganda technique.”

And I didn’t even need to go to your Google list of fallacies for that one
 
archives said:
So is the immigration armageddon over?
Click to expand...
Far from it.
deport.gif
 
Damocles said:
I did in my reasoning above.

Why don't you tell us why the democrats were against them as well? It was bipartisan against that caused both of these things to die.
Click to expand...
That’s not true, both proposals had enough Democrat votes to enter and pass the Congress, Trump, via a tweet to the GOP. killed Langford’s bill
 
archives said:
Certainly isn’t, but the misuse of it is
Click to expand...
History is not 'misused', anchovies. It simply exists. You just want to deny it.
archives said:
, “Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about ...?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation. Propaganda technique.”
Click to expand...
Word games won't work, anchovies.
archives said:
And I didn’t even need to go to your Google list of fallacies for that one
Click to expand...
You can't blame your fallacies on Google or anybody else, anchovies.
 
archives said:
That’s not true, both proposals had enough Democrat votes to enter and pass the Congress, Trump, via a tweet to the GOP. killed Langford’s bill
Click to expand...
Again, people of both parties joined together to kill both of these bills. Pretending that didn't happen is just rewriting history and gaslighting folks.

I gave the reasons the republicans were against the laws above (I included the reasons some democrats were against them as well).

Instead of recognizing that some democrats joined with the republican opposition you just pretend that those folks just didn't exist. I get that you don't want to do some introspection or recognize that combining two laws that already had problems passing will continue to have those same issues once it is done, but it doesn't change what is.

I don't think what I wrote above is pro or against the laws, it was as fair as I could possibly get (even adding stuff like "twitter folks said this" and that would mean we'd need better communication to get past that part of the opposition, even though I think that what the folks on twitter said was largely factually correct).
 
Damocles said:
LOL. Um, no. Effective border security was something done without such "reform". Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

Removing folks that shouldn't be here continues, that is what my post said, though the border is now infinitely more secure without a single change in law we still have the effects of the Braindead Administration's lax border security to deal with.
Click to expand...
It's a daunting task, and I'm sure BlackRock is drooling.
I say let's have the military and agencies do it. There will need to be enhanced deportation rates for several years it looks like.
A fleet of buses and one of planes as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top