Both parties have played this game in the last 40 years., but mostly Republicans (as Democrats cling to the belief that "demographics is destiny" and immigrants vote D, which is turning out to be not as true as they'd like). Democrats have their own pet "do not solve but complain loudly issue" and it's called reasonable gun control.
On abortion: there was never a time where the Democrats had a trifecta of a majority in the House; a super-majority in the Senate; and a POTUS that was pro-choice.
It's possible that States may have put protections in place, but nationally - no.
Saxby Chambliss was a popular Republican Senator - until he became part of the "gang of eight." Then he started getting booed at GOP events here. Marco Rubio was the future of the Republican party - until he tried to reform immigration. So, elected Republicans have received the message: do not ever vote to do anything that might help solve this problem.
I think it's a rather shrewd move by Biden: if his EO is enjoined and halted, he can unequivocally state that no, POTUS can do nothing about this issue and Congress - specifically the GOP - needs to get on it.
Biden's mistake was not to enact it the day after trump told the house/senate not to pass the compromise legislation. I know, it takes time to craft something that may not even stand up in a court of law, which is why i would have loved to see the bill reached be used as the executive order.
And, please let's stop with the both-sidesizm and how the dems have blocked immigration reform. The gang of 8 bill should have passed back when it was put forward but the hardliners on the right killed it. Hell, Lankford's bill should have passed, but it made too much sense; trump simply doesn't care about anything other than himself.
In fact as i sit here i find myself wanting to create a homage to the man himself. Taking one of my all time favorite songs and flipping the script a bit: "Oh donny boy, the cells, the cells are calling. From New York, to DC, to Atlanta, to Florida, the cells are calling you."
My bad guys; i'm struggling to get my head around Mike Johnson telling us all the republicans are the "true rule of law party." You simply can't make this stuff up.
Controlled immigration is good. It should be a net positive and limited to immigrants who can be vetted and assimilated and capable of providing their own needs by legal means. We currently have at least ten million illegals who have not been vetted and assimilated. The burden of justifying asylum is on the applicant. Not the USA taxpayers.
The government, AKA US taxpayers, have to vet and process said asylum claims. There's no way around that: it's a function of the government.
The problem is that current law is too easily abused: this requires that the law actually be changed. That means Congress - not POTUS - needs to take action.
I'm not arguing that point. The taxpayers should not have to feed, house, transport and provide lawyers for asylum applicants. If an applicant is savvy enough to be aware of the law, he should have his case prepared before he gets here. If not, he more than likely is just repeating what human smugglers told him to say.
Just to add to this convo a little more: it's entirely possible to deal with the asylum claimant issue without enacting further restrictions on the process. This would involve funding and hiring a heckuva lot more immigration judges, to the point where processing a claim takes days/weeks instead of years - and just let them rip through the backlog. We'd still have to house/feed people while their case is being adjudicated, but it'd assumedly allow for fewer detainment facilities and less money spent on claimants overall.
That would still require Congress for appropriations, however.
I'm sure you mean "detain", not "detail". I agree assuming they are properly detained and not free to roam. No luxury facilities are required. I'm thinking WWII era barracks or SteelCells (just a plug for a Georgia corporation). I would install sprinkler systems in the barracks unlike in the ones I lived in for several months. MRE's are good enough for Army and Marine personnel and should suffice for asylum seekers.
I'm all for it. A microwave oven and a Lean Cuisine tuna casserole works for me. Maybe some Honey Nut Cheerios and a spoonful of frozen blueberries for breakfast. I have made it through several days on a similar diet.
Both parties have played this game in the last 40 years., but mostly Republicans (as Democrats cling to the belief that "demographics is destiny" and immigrants vote D, which is turning out to be not as true as they'd like). Democrats have their own pet "do not solve but complain loudly issue" and it's called reasonable gun control.
I think abortion was one too. Neither side really wanted to solve that. It was too useful for fundraising and firing up the bases.
On abortion: there was never a time where the Democrats had a trifecta of a majority in the House; a super-majority in the Senate; and a POTUS that was pro-choice.
It's possible that States may have put protections in place, but nationally - no.
Saxby Chambliss was a popular Republican Senator - until he became part of the "gang of eight." Then he started getting booed at GOP events here. Marco Rubio was the future of the Republican party - until he tried to reform immigration. So, elected Republicans have received the message: do not ever vote to do anything that might help solve this problem.
I think it's a rather shrewd move by Biden: if his EO is enjoined and halted, he can unequivocally state that no, POTUS can do nothing about this issue and Congress - specifically the GOP - needs to get on it.
Biden's mistake was not to enact it the day after trump told the house/senate not to pass the compromise legislation. I know, it takes time to craft something that may not even stand up in a court of law, which is why i would have loved to see the bill reached be used as the executive order.
And, please let's stop with the both-sidesizm and how the dems have blocked immigration reform. The gang of 8 bill should have passed back when it was put forward but the hardliners on the right killed it. Hell, Lankford's bill should have passed, but it made too much sense; trump simply doesn't care about anything other than himself.
In fact as i sit here i find myself wanting to create a homage to the man himself. Taking one of my all time favorite songs and flipping the script a bit: "Oh donny boy, the cells, the cells are calling. From New York, to DC, to Atlanta, to Florida, the cells are calling you."
My bad guys; i'm struggling to get my head around Mike Johnson telling us all the republicans are the "true rule of law party." You simply can't make this stuff up.
:)
Controlled immigration is good. It should be a net positive and limited to immigrants who can be vetted and assimilated and capable of providing their own needs by legal means. We currently have at least ten million illegals who have not been vetted and assimilated. The burden of justifying asylum is on the applicant. Not the USA taxpayers.
The government, AKA US taxpayers, have to vet and process said asylum claims. There's no way around that: it's a function of the government.
The problem is that current law is too easily abused: this requires that the law actually be changed. That means Congress - not POTUS - needs to take action.
I'm not arguing that point. The taxpayers should not have to feed, house, transport and provide lawyers for asylum applicants. If an applicant is savvy enough to be aware of the law, he should have his case prepared before he gets here. If not, he more than likely is just repeating what human smugglers told him to say.
If the government is going to detail illegals and asylum seekers, it has the responsibility of feeding and housing them.
Just to add to this convo a little more: it's entirely possible to deal with the asylum claimant issue without enacting further restrictions on the process. This would involve funding and hiring a heckuva lot more immigration judges, to the point where processing a claim takes days/weeks instead of years - and just let them rip through the backlog. We'd still have to house/feed people while their case is being adjudicated, but it'd assumedly allow for fewer detainment facilities and less money spent on claimants overall.
That would still require Congress for appropriations, however.
I'm sure you mean "detain", not "detail". I agree assuming they are properly detained and not free to roam. No luxury facilities are required. I'm thinking WWII era barracks or SteelCells (just a plug for a Georgia corporation). I would install sprinkler systems in the barracks unlike in the ones I lived in for several months. MRE's are good enough for Army and Marine personnel and should suffice for asylum seekers.
An MRE is ~$7.25/meal. We can assumedly feed people for a good amount less per meal, as they don't need field rations.
I'm all for it. A microwave oven and a Lean Cuisine tuna casserole works for me. Maybe some Honey Nut Cheerios and a spoonful of frozen blueberries for breakfast. I have made it through several days on a similar diet.
How?