Clarification: SCOTUS did not order Texas to do anything. Therefore Texas is not defying SCOTUS. The Court merely overturned an injunction preventing the Border Patrol from removing razor wire placed by Texas on private property. The case will now be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Texas is defying the repeal of the injunction which technically doesn’t require the state to do anything. However I suspect there will be an order soon with specific actions Texas is required to take. Then they will truly defy it.
The Democrats proposed immigration changes in 2021 too: to say that Democrats ignore the issue is wrong, especially when every attempt at bipartisan immigration reform over the past 20 years was killed off by the GOP.
Big difference biblically between illegal immigration and legal immigration. Thanks for obfuscating the issue. Show me where the Bible says a nation cannot have laws protective of it's borders.
I don’t think there is a difference. The Bible does not stipulate that mercy should be based on immigration status, and as SGman pointed out, it is legal to cross the border and request asylum.
Of course it's legal to come across and request asylum, but it is also legal AND biblical to enforce laws against illegal immigrants, and to protect and defend a nation's borders.
It isn't biblical to treat illegal immigrants and/or asylum seekers (or any other prisoners) cruelly in the hope of discouraging future crossings. I don't see any problem with having fair immigration laws and standards as long as immigrants are treated humanely.
We are instucted to help the poor and needy. That command does not stop at the border.
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
Current law is inadequate to deal with the issue, and that means legislation - and removal of the issue as a useful tool for the GOP.
As outlined by one of the comments below, the senate deal is bad for America and should be stopped. It looks like the senate is selling out and I hope the House can stop it.
It is laughable to blame this on Republicans wanting to run on it in the face of the Democrats forcing an open border for 3 years only to act on it when they see that it is hurting them going into an election with a demented candidate.
I think we need a change in the immigration law but we don't need this change to stop the invasion, President Trump had it stopped within the framework of the present laws before he left the Whitehouse. Stop the invasion, get rid of the illegals and then focus on a responsible immigration law that protects America.
Senate border deal details, per source familiar I just had a call with.
- Mandatory detention of all single adults.
- Mandatory “shut down” of border once average daily migrant encounters hits 5,000. Importantly, this 5,000 number includes 1,400 CBP One app entries at ports of entry per day, and roughly 3,600 illegal crossings per day.
- How is that enforced? Once the 5,000 threshold is hit, a new authority is codified into law that requires Border Patrol to immediately remove illegal immigrants they catch without processing. They would not get to request asylum, they would immediately be removed. This includes removals back to Mexico, and deportations to home countries. This would be a *massive* change from current policy, which is that once an illegal immigrant reaches US soil, they must be processed via Title 8 and allowed to claim asylum. Under this new authority – they are not processed, and they are mandatorily immediately removed once the “shut down” threshold is reached.
- This “shut down” also takes effect is there are 8,500 migrant encounters in a single day.
- The “shut down” would not lift the next day. It wouldn’t lift until daily encounters are reduced to under 75% of the 5,000 threshold for at least two weeks. This means the “shut down” authority would not lift until two weeks of an average of less than 3,750 migrant encounters per day.
- Some family units will be released with ATD (Alternatives to Detention, ankle monitors etc).
- New removal authority to immediately remove all migrants who do not have valid asylum claims, which will be determined within 6 months rather than the years long process we have right now.
- Any migrant caught trying to cross twice during “shut down” phase would be banned from entering US for one year.
- US will need agreement with Mexico for MX to take back non Mexican illegal immigrants. This hasn't been ironed out yet.
- President Biden approves of the deal and is ready to sign it as is, right now, and implement the new authority it would give him.
Couple highlights from a piece over on RedState...
Average daily 5,000/day x 365 days/year equals 1,825,000/year. Not much of a "shut-down." And if they can shut down when the average daily headcount (however that is calculated) hits 5,000, then they could also shut it down at zero, right?
If they can ban a migrant from entering for a year, if they are caught trying to cross twice during shut down, why can't they ban them forever?
I hope other commenters on this site will check out the links below. The arguments against the proposed compromise are not false but they are debatable. The way I see it, there is no real compromise even if the bureaucrats could be trusted. I would like to see rebuttals addressing the value of hundreds of thousands of illegals to society and our economic well-being. Maybe we are missing something.
If Bill Melugin's source is correct, it would be better assuming that most illegals are detained or effectively tracked. It could also result in several hundred thousand illegals being scattered across the country every six months never to show up for adjudication of their cases.
It's not 5000 people allowed to enter a day. It's if daily encounters - which includes inadmissibles anywhere - is over 5000 a day then asylum claims are stopped until encounters drop.
Exactly, but why 5000? Why not 500, or 50? Lower trigger, reduced number of asylum claims, the "system" gets some relief, and border patrol agents can stop making sandwiches and get back to border *control*.
Of course, this assumes the trigger can be, and will be, enforced.
5000 is a reasonable number. Lower amounts effectively mean there are no asylum claims allowed. Then again, I think that is the goal for many: no more asylum claims or immigration in general.
It matters only if those encountered are immediately deported or detained. Otherwise, they are scattered across the USA and given up to six months to go underground.
"Encounters: The sum of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Title 8 apprehensions, Office of Field Operations (OFO) Title 8 inadmissibles, and noncitizens processed for expulsions under Title 42 authority by USBP or OFO."
Stop using the term illegals: asylum claims are legal.
Then you need enough personnel to process and reject those claims in a timely manner. That requires funds, thus legislation.
The quoted text above is from CBP. When you see "there have been X encounters", that's what it means. In other words - even those coming through a port of entry that are deemed inadmissible are an encounter.
David, do you really have details to justify your conclusion that congressional Republicans are refusing a compromise purely for political purposes? There is no publicly available text of the draft bipartisan agreement. Some right-wing pols claim that the agreement would essentially be a de facto legalization of illegals at an unacceptably high level. Left-wing pols claim Republican demands are cruel.
Senator Mike Lee claims the law governing asylum is written in "may" language - not "shall" language. That means the rules are set by executive branch bureaucrats. It also means the President has the authority to control illegal immigration if he so chooses. He does not choose to which is why legislation to require enforcement is needed. It's simple. Protect the borders of the USA and funds will be available for supporting Ukraine. That's a compromise.
It's certainly unfortunate that funding for Ukraine defense is tied to defense of the southern border but without leverage, both parties in a closely divided government are powerless. That's how we got the totally irresponsible "Inflation" Reduction Act. Republicans got no credit for collusion with the Biden administration on that matter. There is no reason for further collusion. They will still be vilified by left wing politicians and the press - and their own voters will sit out elections.
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
This determines that claiming asylum - no matter how you got to the US - is legal. Without resources to process these claims in a timely manner, you end up with a huge backlog and no reduction in demand. Those waiting in line a ports of entry are vulnerable to attack, thus leading to crossing through rivers/deserts.
Without changing the law to require entry through an official PoE, the law remains inadequate. Without increasing funding for more CBP personnel, detention facilities, electronic surveillance, etc..., the situation will not change.
POTUS cannot change the law, nor spend money that has not been approved. It requires legislation from Congress, which the GOP has killed since George W Bush was in office.
The border is not being enforced. The rules on how illegals and asylum scammers are processed are determined by executive branch bureaucrats. The President has the authority to change those rules.
"(ii)Claims for asylum
If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) of this title and the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (B)."
The criteria for making the determination described in the above quote can be changed and streamlined.
"(IV)Mandatory detention
Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed."
Contrary to your assertion, POTUS has undeniably decided he can change the Section 1225 requirement above.
No, POTUS does not have the right to change statute.
And the important point for the above: it requires there to be sufficient personnel to process these claims and make determination as to validity/invalidity of the claim, and sufficient facilities to detain those needing to be detained. That requires money, which Biden has asked for - and which the GOP does not want to provide.
If he can't change the statute, where is the evidence of incarceration? There is none - only a release and an appearance date eight years off.
The means of determining eligibility for asylum is not defined in the statute. It could be one question. For example: "Do you have any documents or witnesses to verify your claims of fear of persecution?" If not, the applicant could be deported.
"3. Although congressional rules are designed to limit it, Congress can and does “legislate” in appropriation acts. Ultimately, appropriation acts are, like any other statute, passed by both houses of Congress and either signed by the President or enacted over a presidential veto. As such, they have the same legal force and effect as ordinary bills relating to a particular subject."
Those persecuting someone typically don't provide documentation that they are doing so, and may leave no witnesses. This is a non starter made without faith.
You start from the point of view that illegals should be admitted if they are treated badly by their government. I start from the point of view that immigrants, especially illegals, should be denied admittance unless they will be a net positive to the USA.
If there is legislation, it should specify all administrative details and criteria used to prove asylum is justified. Total transparency. No bureaucratic fudge factors allowed. It should include a list of countries where claims of persecution are found to often be justified and countries where such claims are unfounded. Otherwise, we will be overrun by undesirables whining about being addressed by dead names or the wrong pronouns or similarly frivolous complaints.
In many cases, there own words are evidence of their motive. I listed a couple.
As far as I could determine, the final language of the bill has not been set, but even a “may” would give the executive branch more tools to limit the asylum process. It may not be everything you want, but it’s more than you have now or are likely to get after the election.
It might be more than I could get after the election because I think if Trump is the Republican nominee, a democrat (probably not Joe Biden) would be elected. Otherwise, a Republican President could stop the invasion over the southern border without further legislation.
Clarification: SCOTUS did not order Texas to do anything. Therefore Texas is not defying SCOTUS. The Court merely overturned an injunction preventing the Border Patrol from removing razor wire placed by Texas on private property. The case will now be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Texas is defying the repeal of the injunction which technically doesn’t require the state to do anything. However I suspect there will be an order soon with specific actions Texas is required to take. Then they will truly defy it.
I clarified the statement. I'm in agreement as to what the Court did.
So blocking CBP from removing said razor wire would be a violation of SCOTUS's order or no?
The Democrats proposed immigration changes in 2021 too: to say that Democrats ignore the issue is wrong, especially when every attempt at bipartisan immigration reform over the past 20 years was killed off by the GOP.
Big difference biblically between illegal immigration and legal immigration. Thanks for obfuscating the issue. Show me where the Bible says a nation cannot have laws protective of it's borders.
I don’t think there is a difference. The Bible does not stipulate that mercy should be based on immigration status, and as SGman pointed out, it is legal to cross the border and request asylum.
Of course it's legal to come across and request asylum, but it is also legal AND biblical to enforce laws against illegal immigrants, and to protect and defend a nation's borders.
That's what I said.
It isn't biblical to treat illegal immigrants and/or asylum seekers (or any other prisoners) cruelly in the hope of discouraging future crossings. I don't see any problem with having fair immigration laws and standards as long as immigrants are treated humanely.
We are instucted to help the poor and needy. That command does not stop at the border.
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
Current law is inadequate to deal with the issue, and that means legislation - and removal of the issue as a useful tool for the GOP.
As outlined by one of the comments below, the senate deal is bad for America and should be stopped. It looks like the senate is selling out and I hope the House can stop it.
It is laughable to blame this on Republicans wanting to run on it in the face of the Democrats forcing an open border for 3 years only to act on it when they see that it is hurting them going into an election with a demented candidate.
I think we need a change in the immigration law but we don't need this change to stop the invasion, President Trump had it stopped within the framework of the present laws before he left the Whitehouse. Stop the invasion, get rid of the illegals and then focus on a responsible immigration law that protects America.
Title 42 was a COVID action, and the pandemic is over.
Be specific about what you don't like about the plan, 'cause the ability to deny all asylum claims doesn't exist now.
And FYI: border crossings doubled from FY2018 to FY2019. The only reason they went down in FY2020 was COVID.
These increases are a continuing trend due to destabilization in Venezuela and Haiti. That's 40mil people between the two countries.
Per https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/1751061492466941958
Senate border deal details, per source familiar I just had a call with.
- Mandatory detention of all single adults.
- Mandatory “shut down” of border once average daily migrant encounters hits 5,000. Importantly, this 5,000 number includes 1,400 CBP One app entries at ports of entry per day, and roughly 3,600 illegal crossings per day.
- How is that enforced? Once the 5,000 threshold is hit, a new authority is codified into law that requires Border Patrol to immediately remove illegal immigrants they catch without processing. They would not get to request asylum, they would immediately be removed. This includes removals back to Mexico, and deportations to home countries. This would be a *massive* change from current policy, which is that once an illegal immigrant reaches US soil, they must be processed via Title 8 and allowed to claim asylum. Under this new authority – they are not processed, and they are mandatorily immediately removed once the “shut down” threshold is reached.
- This “shut down” also takes effect is there are 8,500 migrant encounters in a single day.
- The “shut down” would not lift the next day. It wouldn’t lift until daily encounters are reduced to under 75% of the 5,000 threshold for at least two weeks. This means the “shut down” authority would not lift until two weeks of an average of less than 3,750 migrant encounters per day.
- Some family units will be released with ATD (Alternatives to Detention, ankle monitors etc).
- New removal authority to immediately remove all migrants who do not have valid asylum claims, which will be determined within 6 months rather than the years long process we have right now.
- Any migrant caught trying to cross twice during “shut down” phase would be banned from entering US for one year.
- US will need agreement with Mexico for MX to take back non Mexican illegal immigrants. This hasn't been ironed out yet.
- President Biden approves of the deal and is ready to sign it as is, right now, and implement the new authority it would give him.
Couple highlights from a piece over on RedState...
Average daily 5,000/day x 365 days/year equals 1,825,000/year. Not much of a "shut-down." And if they can shut down when the average daily headcount (however that is calculated) hits 5,000, then they could also shut it down at zero, right?
If they can ban a migrant from entering for a year, if they are caught trying to cross twice during shut down, why can't they ban them forever?
Weak tea.
Do you know what an encounter is?
I hope other commenters on this site will check out the links below. The arguments against the proposed compromise are not false but they are debatable. The way I see it, there is no real compromise even if the bureaucrats could be trusted. I would like to see rebuttals addressing the value of hundreds of thousands of illegals to society and our economic well-being. Maybe we are missing something.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2024/01/27/the-details-of-bidens-border-security-bill-show-it-wont-work-and-thats-probably-the-plan-n2169287
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2024/01/27/elon-musk-destroys-bidens-border-narrative-with-one-tweet-offers-easy-solution-n2169314
If Bill Melugin's source is correct, it would be better assuming that most illegals are detained or effectively tracked. It could also result in several hundred thousand illegals being scattered across the country every six months never to show up for adjudication of their cases.
Do you understand what an "encounter" is?
Yes.
Then do you understand what the proposal says?
It's not 5000 people allowed to enter a day. It's if daily encounters - which includes inadmissibles anywhere - is over 5000 a day then asylum claims are stopped until encounters drop.
Exactly, but why 5000? Why not 500, or 50? Lower trigger, reduced number of asylum claims, the "system" gets some relief, and border patrol agents can stop making sandwiches and get back to border *control*.
Of course, this assumes the trigger can be, and will be, enforced.
5000 is a reasonable number. Lower amounts effectively mean there are no asylum claims allowed. Then again, I think that is the goal for many: no more asylum claims or immigration in general.
It matters only if those encountered are immediately deported or detained. Otherwise, they are scattered across the USA and given up to six months to go underground.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
"Encounters: The sum of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Title 8 apprehensions, Office of Field Operations (OFO) Title 8 inadmissibles, and noncitizens processed for expulsions under Title 42 authority by USBP or OFO."
Stop using the term illegals: asylum claims are legal.
Most asylum claims are bogus.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/01/the-causes-of-the-latest-border-crisis-and-how-to-fix-it/#:~:text=The%20reality%20is%20that%20some%2090%20percent%20of,are%20economic%20migrants%20looking%20for%20a%20better%20life.
You are free to claim that border crossers who lie to claim asylum are legal if you wish. Most citizens would not agree.
And, encounters are chance meetings or difficult or hostile engagements.
Then you need enough personnel to process and reject those claims in a timely manner. That requires funds, thus legislation.
The quoted text above is from CBP. When you see "there have been X encounters", that's what it means. In other words - even those coming through a port of entry that are deemed inadmissible are an encounter.
Look up that info: you're misinformed.
David, do you really have details to justify your conclusion that congressional Republicans are refusing a compromise purely for political purposes? There is no publicly available text of the draft bipartisan agreement. Some right-wing pols claim that the agreement would essentially be a de facto legalization of illegals at an unacceptably high level. Left-wing pols claim Republican demands are cruel.
Senator Mike Lee claims the law governing asylum is written in "may" language - not "shall" language. That means the rules are set by executive branch bureaucrats. It also means the President has the authority to control illegal immigration if he so chooses. He does not choose to which is why legislation to require enforcement is needed. It's simple. Protect the borders of the USA and funds will be available for supporting Ukraine. That's a compromise.
It's certainly unfortunate that funding for Ukraine defense is tied to defense of the southern border but without leverage, both parties in a closely divided government are powerless. That's how we got the totally irresponsible "Inflation" Reduction Act. Republicans got no credit for collusion with the Biden administration on that matter. There is no reason for further collusion. They will still be vilified by left wing politicians and the press - and their own voters will sit out elections.
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
This determines that claiming asylum - no matter how you got to the US - is legal. Without resources to process these claims in a timely manner, you end up with a huge backlog and no reduction in demand. Those waiting in line a ports of entry are vulnerable to attack, thus leading to crossing through rivers/deserts.
Without changing the law to require entry through an official PoE, the law remains inadequate. Without increasing funding for more CBP personnel, detention facilities, electronic surveillance, etc..., the situation will not change.
POTUS cannot change the law, nor spend money that has not been approved. It requires legislation from Congress, which the GOP has killed since George W Bush was in office.
The border is not being enforced. The rules on how illegals and asylum scammers are processed are determined by executive branch bureaucrats. The President has the authority to change those rules.
"(ii)Claims for asylum
If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) of this title and the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (B)."
The criteria for making the determination described in the above quote can be changed and streamlined.
"(IV)Mandatory detention
Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed."
Contrary to your assertion, POTUS has undeniably decided he can change the Section 1225 requirement above.
No, POTUS does not have the right to change statute.
And the important point for the above: it requires there to be sufficient personnel to process these claims and make determination as to validity/invalidity of the claim, and sufficient facilities to detain those needing to be detained. That requires money, which Biden has asked for - and which the GOP does not want to provide.
If he can't change the statute, where is the evidence of incarceration? There is none - only a release and an appearance date eight years off.
The means of determining eligibility for asylum is not defined in the statute. It could be one question. For example: "Do you have any documents or witnesses to verify your claims of fear of persecution?" If not, the applicant could be deported.
Regarding funding, there is such a thing as legislating by appropriation. From: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46497
"3. Although congressional rules are designed to limit it, Congress can and does “legislate” in appropriation acts. Ultimately, appropriation acts are, like any other statute, passed by both houses of Congress and either signed by the President or enacted over a presidential veto. As such, they have the same legal force and effect as ordinary bills relating to a particular subject."
CBP stats are here, feel free to peruse: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics#:~:text=In%20Fiscal%20Year%202020%2C%20CBP,percent%20of%20arriving%20international%20travelers.
Those persecuting someone typically don't provide documentation that they are doing so, and may leave no witnesses. This is a non starter made without faith.
Again: LEGISLATION.
You start from the point of view that illegals should be admitted if they are treated badly by their government. I start from the point of view that immigrants, especially illegals, should be denied admittance unless they will be a net positive to the USA.
If there is legislation, it should specify all administrative details and criteria used to prove asylum is justified. Total transparency. No bureaucratic fudge factors allowed. It should include a list of countries where claims of persecution are found to often be justified and countries where such claims are unfounded. Otherwise, we will be overrun by undesirables whining about being addressed by dead names or the wrong pronouns or similarly frivolous complaints.
In many cases, there own words are evidence of their motive. I listed a couple.
As far as I could determine, the final language of the bill has not been set, but even a “may” would give the executive branch more tools to limit the asylum process. It may not be everything you want, but it’s more than you have now or are likely to get after the election.
It might be more than I could get after the election because I think if Trump is the Republican nominee, a democrat (probably not Joe Biden) would be elected. Otherwise, a Republican President could stop the invasion over the southern border without further legislation.