To all the border bellyachers out there, tell me what YOU would do, if YOU were President

If you say 'I would close the border"

Tell me exactly what that means.

Because.....

What it cannot mean is to stop the traffic of goods, which equal $3 billion per year.

What it cannot do is stop people who live on one side, and work on the other.

What it cannot do is stop people from entering the country legally, those with passports and visas. I live near the border, and I can enter Mexico anytime i want, and I can come back, any time I want. There are thousands and thousands just like me. Are you going to say 'you can't do that anymore' ?

Now, what are you going to do?

And for all you geniuses out there, you tell me what you would do that is not on that border bill.

Here is the bill.

https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/MCC24166.pdf

See how complex it is? This is what I'm talking about, there is way way way way more to this issue than saying 'i would close the border', which is a meaningless impotent statement. READ THE BILL.

America's border is not a simple house with door that you can simply close. Look at the border bill, realize how complex the issue is, EDUCATE YOURSELF on the scope of the problem.

There are $3 billion worth of durable goods that traverse the border every day.

There are thousands and thousands of persons legally entering the country and leaving the country across the border. You can't stop them.

See, what hasn't occurred to you is if there is something better that could be done, it would be on the bill. IT WAS NEGOTIATED BY SENATOR LANKFORD, A REPUBLICAN, HE HAS BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR 4 MONTHS, COMPLYING WITH THE REPUB WISH LIST, it's all on there. And when they now have it, now the House repubs don't want it? Now they say, the very thing that they wanted all of the sudden, now they say it won't work? Are you guys listening to what has been going on? Trump is behind this.

And where is the House bill, hmmmmmmm?

Where the hell is it? The guys in the house who are bellyaching the most, where is their bill?

I swear, you guys don't want to solve the border issue, you just want to bellyache.

You guys keep saying it's the President, he has to stop it.

Okay, what can he do, exactly, that is not on that bill, mindful of the above.

ARe you going to stop everyone from crossing the border who need to cross?

Are you doing to stop the flow of commerce, billions worth?

If you think that is the solution,. there will be hell to pay if that is your idea.

You guys just want to bellyache so you can get Trump elected. Well, he won't be able to solve the problem,. either. He will be cruel, because for him, cruel is the point. Thousands of more children will be separated from there parents. Thousands and thousands will pile up on the Mexico side as they did before, creating a worse humanitarian crisis. And then Trump will harangue us endlessly about Muslims, illegals who are poisoning the country, more and more buffoonery.

And why didn't Trump solve the problem when he was president? He had four years and both houses under his thumb. THe muslim ban didn't solve the problem. The asylum ban didn't solve the problem.

And all the while several key industries are experiencing labor shortages.

I really don't think you guys understand the scope of the issue.

So, tell me what you would do, and I want to see some intelligent ideas, ideas that have some serious thought that addresses the many complexities related to the problem, as the border bill does address. What would you do better than what is on the bill?

I'll be waiting for your answer.

And no, reversing the EOs by Biden won't do it.

No way. If that is your only argument, it will be ignored.

 

Even going back to the policies under Bush (Jr) (very imperfect and half-hearted as they were) would be much better than what the situation now. The border under Bill Clinton was better than that.

Of course the border wall itself is only half the issue, and isn't really the primary issue.

What's happening right now is any migrant can show up to the border, claim they are seeking "asylum", and they are let in. Most all of them are just being released into the U.S. Their court cases are not set until 4 or 5 years later, sometimes longer than that, due to the backlog. And even when their court date does arrive, half the time they just disappear. With sanctuary state policies, it's unlikely they will end up deported.

 

You ask what's wrong with the deal?

This link touches on just some of it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/no-to-the-border-deal/

And then there's this:

Conservatives have attacked a provision of the new border security bill that would only allow legal challenges to be made in Washington D.C.
Newsweek, Feb 05, 2024

The bill would strip the power of Texas and other states to challenge some of the its provisions in their local federal court.
Conservative commentators were quick to denounce the provision, contained on page 221 of the bill.
After outlining the provisions under which immigrants can seek judicial review of a deportation order, the bill states:

"The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have sole and original jurisdiction to hear challenges, whether constitutional or otherwise, to the validity of this section or any written policy directive, written policy guideline, written procedure, or the implementation thereof."
​

In my opinion I'd describe this one single thing as a poison pill, almost making the bill into a Trojan horse.

 

As far as I can tell the procedures at the border are pretty much the same and the same proportion of people are being let through.

The main difference between this administration and the last one is attitude and messaging. So my recommendation for next Potus, domestically would be to rant and rave, make a fuss, complain, pick up the phone.

As the same time I would be making sweet overtures to all the countries South Of The Border with diplomacy and tactful awareness to see if the hordes swarming up from south America can be thinned a bit. Mexico aside, why can't people seek their asylum in any of the other countries.

 

There have been several smaller and worrying changes in border procedure. But it is mostly not about border procedure, it is about actual enforcement.
Money is of course an issue, but only part of it.

And then the issue of letting in migrants under the guise of "asylum". There's been plenty of evidence showing the Biden Administration has been busing them in.

Biden busing migrants in through the border

One new policy is border patrol has been ordered not to chase cars that are fleeing from them, unless they have some special reason.
DHS' New Limited Policy on Vehicle Chases Brings Hope for Ending Unnecessary Deaths - Government Executive (govexec.com)

Border Patrol union rips Biden admin's new pursuit policy: 'Smugglers will be encouraged to drive recklessly' | Fox News , Paul Best, Jan 31, 2023

 

The main problem is too many people are coming. Since the same proportion of people are being let through I don't see any difference between this administration and the last which was very anti-immigrant in terms of enforcement.

There are two problems - too many people coming and shitty paperwork.

 

Since the border problem seems to be over the heads of the left, Texas decided they had enough.
I wonder, do you guys even listen to your own media, or because they report things you can't comprehend, are they now conservative media outlets in your minds.

CBS NEWS
Migrant crossings fall sharply along Texas border, shifting to Arizona and California
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-texas-border-arizona-california-migrants/

Eagle Pass, Texas — In recent weeks, the flow of migrants crossing into the U.S. illegally has largely shifted away from Texas, concentrating instead in Arizona and California, where immigration officials are now recording roughly 60% of all unlawful border crossings, according to internal federal government figures obtained by CBS News.

Along the 1,254-mile Texas border, the largest of any state neighboring Mexico, crossings by migrants have plunged. The drop has been especially pronounced in the Del Rio sector, which was the second-busiest Border Patrol region in December.
In the seven-day time period ending on Feb. 4, Border Patrol averaged 716 and 536 migrant apprehensions each day in Texas' El Paso and Rio Grande Valley sectors, respectively. The Del Rio sector, meanwhile, has been recording a few hundred apprehensions, and as few as 200, each day — compared to the 2,300 daily migrant crossings there in December.

The shifting migration patterns are clearly visible in Eagle Pass, a small Texas border city in the Del Rio sector that was one of the epicenters of the record influx in migrant crossings in December. At one point that month, Border Patrol held as many as 6,000 migrants in an outdoor staging area in a public park in Eagle Pass next to the Rio Grande, which thousands of migrants were crossing each day to enter the U.S.

But daily illegal crossings have slowed to a trickle in this area, which has been sealed off to the public and federal agents by Texas National Guard soldiers deployed by Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who has repeatedly clashed with President Biden over U.S. immigration policy.

Using layers of razor and concertina wire, shipping containers and other barriers, the Texas National Guard has fortified this 2.5-mile section of the southern border, making it exceedingly difficult for migrants to get past the riverbank of the Rio Grande. It has also sealed off the former Border Patrol staging area with concertina wire, blocking federal agents from processing migrants there.

Abbott hosted more than a dozen Republican governors in Shelby Park and credited the marked decrease in migrant crossings near Eagle Pass to his state's actions, saying average daily crossings in that area had decreased from several thousand to just three in recent days.


So Texas tells Biden to stuff his policies and decided to protect their borders and illegal immigration drops from thousands a day to just 3.
And the left just can't figure out why Bidens policies have allowed over 7 million illegals into the US, which is 4 TIMES HIGHER THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

And they scratch their little heads, then blame Republicans, when the solution is already in place and stopping illegals.

The left isn't much for thinkers or common sense these days.

 

Determine the optimal population growth rate for our economy and various industries and allow entry to however many immigrants are needed to match that number. Then allow in zero more than that. Probably it would be best to determine and adjust this on a yearly basis, or perhaps every time we take a census. Which ever time frame makes the most sense. But the bottom line is we have to have some hard, objective limit, and enforce it.

 

Do you actually want to know? Or do you just want to bash Republicans and anyone that doesn't agree with the DNC agenda?

 

Dems offered Trump his wall in return for DACA, guess Trump did not really want the wall that bad

 

How does Chin stop illegal border invaders?....or any other country for that matter?

 

It's more like what WOULDN'T we have done. We sure as hell wouldn't have REVERSED things that were working (decently). Maybe pick up from there and keep improving. Don't worry though, your boy Joe didn't mess anything up. It was all done according to DESIGN!

 

Or take in 90% of that and then allocate 10% for refugees, (or whatever)?

 

We ship them to another country for processing. (Australia)

 

Well first I wouldn't begin my presidency yelling all all out's in free. 2nd We take control of our border back from the cartels and declare the cartels terrorist. 3rd you get caught bringing fentanyl across the border it is will be consider as attempted murder 1 count per pill. 4th Enact HR2 5th Reinstate remain in Mexico. 6th Zero out the funding for all the NGO's that are making things worse.

 

With 12 million new comers invading our country.... the safe bet would be to take each and every Biden move and reverse it for positive results....

 

You must really watch some FAKE NEWS. I think you have that wrong

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-25-billion-citizenship-million-a8178746.html

 

Trump made a mistake getting too greedy, Trump should have agreed to this deal and ran with it when he had the chance

"Schumer pulls back offer of $25 billion for Trump’s wall as immigration fight continues"

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...or-trumps-wall-as-immigration-fight-continuse

"Schumer had made the offer last Friday in a last-ditch effort to head off a government shutdown, then came scalding criticism from his party’s liberal activist base that Democrats had given up too easily in reopening the government without more concrete promises on immigration."

by delaying, dems took the deal off the table, Trump could of had it

 

When you say "same proportion of people are being let through", are you referring to legal points of entry?

The problem is not the legal points of entry. It is the illegal points of entry that is the problem, and the numbers are up exponentially. I am not sure where you are getting this they are the same narrative, but it is bereft of reality in a big way.

Even the New York Times disagrees with your assessment.
Trump vs. Biden on immigration: 12 charts comparing U.S. border security (msn.com)

 

The phrase "illegal point of entry" or "legal point of entry" does not turn up in your article.

Would you be prepared to discuss total arrests - and then what happens to them? So this would be somebody turning up at the US border without a visa and is then apprehended (the technical term is arrested) Capiche? Yes or no?

 

The difference in the numbers of crossing/entrants are staggering.

The part about legal points of entry is what YOU are referring to. Not me. Legal points of entry is not where the problem exists. That should be patently obvious.

Now you want a discussion about numbers of arrests, which is clearly not the heart of this issue. The heart of this issue is that you took away the stay in Mexico policy where they had to wait in Mexico while their bogus asylum claims wind through the courts. He removed that policy, thus incentivizing everyone to come, and boy have they arrived in full force. That is the hearty of this matter.

Spouting nonsense about similar proportions are being let in is 100% missing the heart of this current problem. Numbers of arrests is similarly missing the heart of this problem. It is probably not your fault. I assume you have been misled. Biden has denied during his entire term that there is even a problem at the border, and now all of a sudden during an election year he wants to pretend like he cares. His politics have sent a signal to all in Cntral America to come on in. They know they will not be turned away. They arent running from border patrol. They are walking to them. When they had to stay in Mexico, at least they had to run away if they were to get in.

 

I wasn't referring to any particular port of entry but the border. Read my post. I never mentioned legal port of entry or otherwise.

The rest of your post is a mess. Obviously you don't want to analyse anything but rather just have a bit of a complain. That's fair enough.

 

And don't cut off or alter parts of my post again, please.

 

I have an idea. How about you pull up the source of your claim and provide that link.

 

There is nothing wrong with focusing upon one concept in your post while ignoring the rest. Its one thing if someone takes you out of context, but I did no such thing. When someone writes a half-page post for example, if you keep quoting their entire post when responding to a small part takes up unnecessary bandwidth and is a pain to scroll through.

It is one thing if someone purposefully takes you out of context to change your meaning, that is what is not allowed, and it is not what occured when I highlighted your sentence. To highlight a particular topic and just use that sentence is not out of bounds. Nothing in your meaning was changed even slightly.

I quoted you saying same proportion of people being let through, and my reply started with "when you say proportion of people being let through".....lets not pretend like I was taking something out of context. I was referring solely to your use of the term I quoted and then subsequently asked about. Yeesh.