Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lawman]

Gang load the oxygen regulator, you’re suffering hypoxia.
The people “tasked with doing something” is the current administration who’s ignored the law and opened the “door” and told every douchenozzle in the world to “come on in”.

It’s like you slept through 8th grade civics.

There are two chambers of government tasked with forming laws to guide the left and right limits of government to include the office of the executive. Those chambers are now not doing anything until Feb 28 about this crises while you of scream about Biden.

Guess it’s not really a problem that needs fixing if you’re ok with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Semantics.

No it’s a flatly transparent lie about what actually happens on the border.

The people screaming no to this law and saying “5k a day is unacceptable” are acting like after it’s passed the border patrol walks up on a group of 500 illegals crossing they check a tracker and go “well we’re only at 3450… It’s ok folks you’re free to go. Dallas is that way.”

That’s not what happens, nor is it what would happen under this law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

You’re not wrong, but semantics are still at play. Up to 4999 rolling daily average and CBP keeps the border open. Only at 5000 average do they have the power to shut down the border (which is described as an “emergency” action and intended to be temp in nature). Or they could just shut down the border right now and leave it shut until we fix this disaster of epic proportions. We’re in a massive emergency situation, but the bill doesn’t support that fact until the daily average getting through is 5k+. In summary, this bill’s supporters are tacitly OK with 4999 daily average.

[Clark Griswold]

Broken record here but until you arrest the employers and prosecute them you would have to 10 x the border security (both north and south)  and interior enforcement to move the needle 

Turn off the electromagnetic pull of illegal employment and benefits then you can address this, it’ll never completely go away but it will get to a tolerable level 

[Lord Ratner]

20 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Broken record here but until you arrest the employers and prosecute them you would have to 10 x the border security (both north and south)  and interior enforcement to move the needle 

Turn off the electromagnetic pull of illegal employment and benefits then you can address this, it’ll never completely go away but it will get to a tolerable level 

🎯

 

This is how you know the "elites" don't want the problem fixed. You could shut down illegal immigration in less than a year, to include the self-deportation of millions of illegals, without building anything. No additional agents, no increased court resources, nothing. Just redirect 5% of immigration agents to random workplace inspections across the country. Fine the employer $10,000 per illegal, per day of employment. After your third separate violation to go to jail.

 

And as a bonus, the countries that actually need working age men working towards an improved society get them back. Seriously do we ever expect the countries of Central and South America to advance to stability if we keep poaching their most motivated workers?

Edited February 15 by Lord Ratner

[Lawman]

You’re not wrong, but semantics are still at play. Up to 4999 rolling daily average and CBP keeps the border open. Only at 5000 average do they have the power to shut down the border (which is described as an “emergency” action and intended to be temp in nature). Or they could just shut down the border right now and leave it shut until we fix this disaster of epic proportions. We’re in a massive emergency situation, but the bill doesn’t support that fact until the daily average getting through is 5k+. In summary, this bill’s supporters are tacitly OK with 4999 daily average.

The border doesn’t open/shut to illegals, that action is already done with apprehension-identification-detention-deportation. And the problem being ignored by the people screaming about “5k illegals!” Is that because that process is undermanned and under equipped logistically it has led to “catch and release.” That’s exactly why the Border Patrol Agents union was supporting this bill. They’d rather apply pressure to a bleeding wound that stand around waiting for the perfect bill which will never pass in Congress.

The 5k triggers a stop in our processing if political refugees even applying for asylum. That doesn’t just close the border to illegal crossings, it closes it to people who have legitimate reason for requesting asylum as well. That’s not us telling some military aged male Chinese guy to get F’d it’s telling some family from Myanmar or one of our Afghan translators that smuggled themselves out sorry our services are closed for the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

8 minutes ago, Lawman said:

The 5k triggers a stop in our processing if political refugees even applying for asylum

False. You are in love with semantical arguments. The no shit text uses the terms “alien” and “encounter.” It literally says the border is not shut down until the 7 day average of “alien encounters” surpasses 5k. Alien is everyone - the terrorist, the Chinese spy, the trafficked kid, the drug runner, the AFG refugee, etc. There is no delineation between who that alien is in the text. So I guess if it helps your brain work better - replace “illegal” with “alien” in all the quotes your railing against and they are 100% accurate sentiments. Word smithing gymnastics doesn’t change the basis of the argument.

[Lawman]

False. You are in love with semantical arguments. The no shit text uses the terms “alien” and “encounter.” It literally says the border is not shut down until the 7 day average of “alien encounters” surpasses 5k. Alien is everyone - the terrorist, the Chinese spy, the trafficked kid, the drug runner, the AFG refugee, etc. There is no delineation between who that alien is in the text. So I guess if it helps your brain work better - replace “illegal” with “alien” in all the quotes your railing against and they are 100% accurate sentiments. Word smithing gymnastics doesn’t change the basis of the argument.

No, because aliens and encounters or illegals or whatever title you want to give them are already detained-identified-processed-deported/apply for asylum.

Catch and release was a result of the current equipped process not having the beds or people to do so within the prescribed legal time limits and forcing their release for a future day in court on our side of the border.

5k a day stops the function of processing people through the assigned ports of entry for whatever excuse they are given. Those ports of entry are there for exactly that purpose, entry, whether that entry is to people claiming asylum or the tens of thousands of people that cross the border on work permits. It makes absolutely no impact on BP agents detaining bands of illegal aliens being smuggled across through the rat lines. Those people caught are detained, only now they’d actually be doing it with more agents on the border and a faster process to send them home. What a terrible thing to have happen if this is the number 1 threat to our country.

Mexico is the number 1 trade partner for the Is economy. You aren’t simply building a wall and slamming the doors shut until we figure this out no matter how much you claim that to be a sound strategy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1:1:1]

Refugees have a responsibility to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach, not the one with the best career opportunities or welfare programs. If we enforced this principle with the remain in Mexico policy we would be able to distinguish the myriad of illegal crossings from legitimate asylum claims.

As it stands you just state that you're seeking asylum, you get a court date, and you get released into the country with no risk of deportation when you skip your court appearance. How is this fundamentally different from letting 5000 people in directly? It just takes 1 extra step where you have to say the magic words.

Semantics 

[Lawman]

Refugees have a responsibility to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach, not the one with the best career opportunities or welfare programs. If we enforced this principle with the remain in Mexico policy we would be able to distinguish the myriad of illegal crossings from legitimate asylum claims.
As it stands you just state that you're seeking asylum, you get a court date, and you get released into the country with no risk of deportation when you skip your court appearance. How is this fundamentally different from letting 5000 people in directly? It just takes 1 extra step where you have to say the magic words.
Semantics 

- Because it shortens the time to process an asylum claim significantly from the current backlog and increases the codified standards for a legitimate asylum claim…

- Because it provides much needed funding to expand holding ability on the border which has gone over capacity long before Biden (see the giant tent on Fort Bliss for example)…

- Because it moves the threshold for control of authority to shut down the border below the office of the president to Homeland security now being able to do so…

You had republicans negotiating to create this bill. Maybe listen to what they say about it and not some blowhard on Twitter.

There is a reason we don’t name the Cartels set up along the border Narco-terror organizations officially, doing so would allow an immediate get asylum card to anybody standing on that side of the border.

Nobody is ever “shutting down the border” if that’s your end goal fantasy just forget about it. Again it’s a near trillion dollar trade corridor thanks largely to Trump renegotiating NAFTA. Every time we “close the border” makes a negative impact on that in our economy to the tune of a few hundred million dollars a day, not to mention disruptions to global supply chains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

To sum up anyone’s discussion with lawman on this topic:

[uhhello]

I think we all can agree to the common definitions of 'shutting down the border' involves attaining the highest fidelity of exactly who is coming across our border anywhere along the border as much as possible.  I don't think anyone in here thinks 'shutting down the border' actually means closing the border at actual border entry/crossing points.  

[Clark Griswold]

- Because it shortens the time to process an asylum claim significantly from the current backlog and increases the codified standards for a legitimate asylum claim…

- Because it provides much needed funding to expand holding ability on the border which has gone over capacity long before Biden (see the giant tent on Fort Bliss for example)…

- Because it moves the threshold for control of authority to shut down the border below the office of the president to Homeland security now being able to do so…

You had republicans negotiating to create this bill. Maybe listen to what they say about it and not some blowhard on Twitter.

There is a reason we don’t name the Cartels set up along the border Narco-terror organizations officially, doing so would allow an immediate get asylum card to anybody standing on that side of the border.

Nobody is ever “shutting down the border” if that’s your end goal fantasy just forget about it. Again it’s a near trillion dollar trade corridor thanks largely to Trump renegotiating NAFTA. Every time we “close the border” makes a negative impact on that in our economy to the tune of a few hundred million dollars a day, not to mention disruptions to global supply chains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But no one believes they will actually do any of this, just like in 1986. The law can say something but if the Executive Branch doesn’t interpret it in a way that leads to practical execution or just says we won’t do it, it doesn’t matter.
Small steps based on demonstrated enforcement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

I think we all can agree to the common definitions of 'shutting down the border' involves attaining the highest fidelity of exactly who is coming across our border anywhere along the border as much as possible.  I don't think anyone in here thinks 'shutting down the border' actually means closing the border at actual border entry/crossing points.  

If they are concerned with that then the funding bill they’ve all decided to unilaterally scream about would actually fix those identified issues.
Closing down those ports of entry which is what the 5k number they are so hung up on is exactly counter to effecting how we account for and maintain close hold on people coming across the border. Whatever the status of the border makes absolutely no effect to the rat line movement of illegals.

Now instead you get to have less agents with less resources being told make do while a bunch of idiots act like the purpose of this law was to just yeet 5k illegals into the general population.

What’s that old mantra about a good plan executed now vs a perfect plan executed never… yeah that’s our actions on the border.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

But no one believes they will actually do any of this, just like in 1986. The law can say something but if the Executive Branch doesn’t interpret it in a way that leads to practical execution or just says we won’t do it, it doesn’t matter.
Small steps based on demonstrated enforcement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then there is a process for that in the justice department and judicial branch. That’s how blue states attorney generals kept suing the Trump administration over, and current red AGs are suing Biden over. It’s also necessary if you’re ever going to have an argument for legitimate impeachment of somebody like Myorkas, which achieved what exactly besides demonstrating the poor control Johnson has of the chamber.

The first step though is to actually make a law. That’s what we elected Congress to do. Demanding the president do something without actual legal framework is nothing more than politicking for reelection, and more importantly it denies Congress putting money to actual achieve effect on the border which the executive can’t simply materialize. And then you move to prevent stuff like this happening https://www.axios.com/2024/02/15/ice-border-detention-funding-congress moving you further from the whole idea of a secure border. But hey we can all wait until the end of the month to take action, because Congress is in recess, I’m sure if Republicans say no louder they will suddenly change their bargaining position and get whatever they want right?

Again, what is being accomplished through no action on the border which is what they managed to achieve by vocally killing this deal before it was ever even released to be read by its critics. It’s not gonna change the number of seats in congress, and if this is the definitive crises than why can we apparently wait until Jan 21, 2025 to solve it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

There are laws. Which are not being enforced. Illegal immigration is … guess what… ILLEGAL. 

enforce what we have. Why are you so open to letting illegals in? It’s very strange. 

[BashiChuni]

BREAK BREAK 

back on thread topic: can someone please tell me why the absolute fuck SECDEF has a Ukrainian flag in his office? JFC this country has gone mad. 
 

 

[Lawman]

There are laws. Which are not being enforced. Illegal immigration is … guess what… ILLEGAL. 
enforce what we have. Why are you so open to letting illegals in? It’s very strange. 

Nobody is letting illegals in by supporting the bill you need to have to have an adult read and explain to you.

Congratulations, you’ve managed to decrease funding to the agency actually tasked with stopping illegal border crossings so they’ll have less people to do it and less assets to use once they catch the ones they can.

Great work, massive achievement towards dealing with the border.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

1 minute ago, Lawman said:

Nobody is letting illegals in by supporting the bill you need to have to have an adult read and explain to you.

Congratulations, you’ve managed to decrease funding to the agency actually tasked with stopping illegal border crossings so they’ll have less people to do it and less assets to use once they catch the ones they can.

Great work, massive achievement towards dealing with the border.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s like talking to a brick wall. do you have a take why SECDEF has a Ukrainian flag in his office? 

[BashiChuni]

8 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Nobody is letting illegals in 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Someone is letting them in. I wonder what changed? Who could have done this?! 

[Lord Ratner]

15 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Someone is letting them in. I wonder what changed? Who could have done this?! 

Which is why border legislation is so necessary. The previous/current system allows a president to simply "open the floodgates" as it were. That needs to be reined in legislatively.

[BashiChuni]

10 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Which is why border legislation is so necessary. The previous/current system allows a president to simply "open the floodgates" as it were. That needs to be reined in legislatively.

Ah so Biden has opened the floodgates. Got it. Why would the republicans make him do that! Republicans are at fault! Logic!

[Lawman]

Someone is letting them in. I wonder what changed? Who could have done this?! 

My god 400k people… what was Trump doing! Asleep at the wheel he hates America!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Standby]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

My god 400k people… what was Trump doing! Asleep at the wheel he hates America!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You’re holding on too tight, you’ve lost the edge. The numbers don’t lie dude. Going 5X isn’t a rounding error. Actually kind of baffled by the last two pages of ‘debate’. Not sure why anybody would be opposed to tightening our borders, yet here we are…

[Lawman]

You’re holding on too tight, you’ve lost the edge. The numbers don’t lie dude. Going 5X isn’t a rounding error. Actually kind of baffled by the last two pages of ‘debate’. Not sure why anybody would be opposed to tightening our borders, yet here we are…

We will instead take no action but to allow Biden to keep doing what he has the last three years. Wow such great success.

None of the republicans being drowned out by the twitterverse who negotiated this were against enforcing the border that was willing to vote for this law, but a whole lot of people made it obvious it was more important to be able to campaign off the issue than to actually do something.

Do any of you want to run with the idea that less border patrol agents with less funding somehow helps us secure the border? And no matter the administration we are not simply going to shoot people coming across the border so bitching about how much water is in the boat does nothing, we’ve got idiots arguing over who put the bigger whole in the boat while refusing to actual bail water.

And meanwhile Congress will continue to go on vacation and do absolutely no actual useful business while they claim that this is the sole problem to focus on. Hooray for gridlock in an election year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk