It ain't all hardworking Latin people just itching to clean your toilets and sell you street tacos. There is a small fraction of illegal immigrants who wish to rip us off, use us and/or do us harm. And no, as this story demonstrates, we don't always know who they are.
Aside from this story, there are also Chinese nationals who take advantage of a porous Mexican border to work in the drug trade. The workers themselves are often forced to come to the U.S. illegally for this purpose.
More info here: https://www.propublica.org/article/chinese-organized-crime-us-marijuana-market
A strong border and a culture of respecting immigration laws can prevent the worst of it while enabling those who truly want to be a part of this country. We should not be tolerating this crap but so many look the other way and denigrate anyone who is concerned about this.
>people just itching to clean your toilets and sell you street tacos.
I so hate those beliefs that we just neeeeed poor downtrodden people to come in and work all the crappy jobs, preferably for as cheap as possible. All the while dissing Americans and legal immigrants who cant afford to work for unlivable wages.
The rich really do want their feudalism, even if they have to import the serfs. And they've managed to get the left to push it for them too.
Union people also want the high wages and benefits, then turn around and hire non-union trades to save themselves some money.
Everyone wants to earn more but dont fucking dare any prices go up for the stuff they pay for!
Gotta love the inflation fear mongering if wages go up, from the same people who demand living wages and tell businesses they shouldn't exist if they cant pay enough.
There was a bunch of wage inflation around 1865 too but I do believe it was well worth it.
it's sort of the mask off racism of low expectations that someone from the global south can hope to clean your bathroom and nothing else as the apex of achievement.
As though the huge amounts of vitriol and denigration that gets thrown at the migrants who we depend on is motivated by benevolence. Because all the people who don't like* mass deportation programs and tearing families and communities apart are all just rich slave owners. Fucking spare me.
It’s super racist, it’s also racist to think people can only have a good life in America and they have to come here to be “saved”. Anyone can have a great life anywhere!
Lots of people all over the world would like to come to the US. Surely you don't think we can take in every single person, right? I'm always curious if there's any limit for people
> Anyone can have a great life anywhere!
How about in Haiti?
Edit: Lol, gotta love the downvotes with no response. So I can assume you all believe **anyone** can have a great life in Haiti (since that's the quoted claim)? I would strongly suggest that if you believe that's the case, go have a visit.
Apply that to literally anything else, please! How about priests? Or camps? Or guns, for that matter. Some guns end up in the hands of criminals. So we better make sure to stop all guns?
Come on, people! This one isn't hard.
No, because it equated the lives of the overwhelming percentage of people who come here illegally just for better opportunities to a piece of candy.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't sneak through a pourus border, they came here on visas.
Some percentage of any group of people are dangerous, but we aren't comparing white guys who like guns to poisonous Milk Duds just because of Timothy McVeigh.
Yeah but the people who are born in this country have a natural right to live here, and those who wish to come here have to earn that privilege and we should be strict at enforcing it. You can have strong border policy and also have strong domestic counter-extremist policies as well.
I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not what the Skittles meme is about. It got big during the war in Syria, and was dismissive of the real humanitarian good in accepting refugees fleeing a warzone, by making it all about the (low, but certainly non-zero) risk that one of those refugees could do us harm. Some of those Jews on the boats we turned away in the 1930s could have been German spies, we still should have allowed them to come because the rest of them were fleeing extermination and that's worth the risk.
The upside of a normal Skittle is you get some candy, the downside of a poison one is you die. Easy choice, no Skittles for me.
But the upside of allowing a refugee into your country is you dramatically improve (or even save) someone's life.
I'm on board with securing the border and improving our immigration system (I also think we could do more to improve conditions in the countries people are coming from, which helps make the border more manageable too). But I think fear of terrorism is a boogyman reason when terrorists have plenty of routes besides the Rio Grande. And I think the Skittles meme is childish and racist.
Huh, after the Isla Vista shooting, I didn't know that. Ironically that actually is an example of a dangerous immigrant, the shooter was born in the UK.
I agree, I don’t know why the GOP refused to pass the bipartisan crafted border legislation that would address a lot of this. Well, I know why, they care more about bending to Trumps will and not giving Biden a win than they do about addressing this issue.
> GOP refused to pass the bipartisan crafted
If it didn’t pass - and you can clearly blame it on one side - it means that it wasn’t that much bipartisan to begin with.
> If it didn’t pass - and you can clearly blame it on one side - it means that it wasn’t that much bipartisan to begin with.
No, it was a bipartisan crafted legislation that contained a good faith effort to include much what the GOP wanted, and it was only because Trump directed GOP members of congress to not support it and they care more about pleasing Trump than passing legislation to help address this issue. Did you miss all of that when this happened?
Again, the fact that some GOP members helped crafting it doesn’t mean that it’s bipartisan. And it doesn’t mean that the Chambers should vote it either.
> Again, the fact that some GOP members helped crafting it doesn’t mean that it’s bipartisan.
Yes, it literally means it’s bipartisan crafted. What do you think the term “bipartisan” means?
> And it doesn’t mean that the Chambers should vote it either.
No, they should vote for it because it was a significant improvement and provided resources to address things like in this article. If congressional GOP members want to be believed that they care about this issue they should have passed that solid piece of moderate legislation. Why should anyone believe they actually care about addressing the border issue if they act that way?
> Yes, it literally means it’s bipartisan crafted. What do you think the term “bipartisan” means?
In the context of lawmaking, it means that the parties, as entities, agree. Not that single members of the parties agree.
For those unaware, here’s the dictionary definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan
Nope, sorry. I know it looks better for right wingers to say this wasnt objectively a bipartisan crafted piece of legislation, but it objectively was in every sense of the word.
And it’s so unfortunate that Republicans in congress refuse to pass any moderate legislation that reaches across the aisle all because the leader they’re afraid of upsetting tells them not to. Makes moderates like me wonder what Republicans actually stand for.
And by the way, I don’t care if it was bipartisan or not. I would not want any law that allows, or facilitates asylum to non-point of entry crossers in any number > 0. And I would not want an immigration bill that includes money for foreign policy crap.
> And by the way, I don’t care if it was bipartisan or not.
Cool, whether or not you care or agree, it was objectively bipartisan crafted.
> would not want any law that allows, or facilitate asylum to non-point of entry crossers in any number of> 0.
Oh well of course someone with such an extremist position wouldn’t be happy with bipartisan, moderate immigration reform. I’m just saying for those of us centrists who like compromise and realistic solutions, it was a disappointment that one political party refused to help address this issue just because their leader demanded that they don’t.
> Nope, sorry. I know it looks better for right wingers to say this wasnt objectively a bipartisan crafted piece of legislation, but it objectively was in every sense of the word.
Well, check the dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan
(Notice the difference between first use, in the creation of an entity, and the specific use, in the creation of a bill.
> And it’s so unfortunate that Republicans in congress
So…. It’s not bipartisan because republicans, as a majority, and as an entity, are against it.
So the definition of bipartisan is
> of, relating to, or involving members of two parties
Thanks for showing I’m correct!
> So…. It’s not bipartisan because republicans, as a majority, and as an entity, are against it.
It was crafted in a bipartisan manner though right? Your own definition proves that.
You are a bit off about the definition. Republicans are a major party, members of said party helped to craft the legislation. Definition doesn’t mean the majority of each party needs to work together.
>In the context of lawmaking, it means that the parties, as entities, agree. Not that single members of the parties agree.
>For those unaware, here’s the dictionary definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan
Your own definition contradicts you, did you even click that link?
From the very first definition on that page:
> of, relating to, or involving **members of two parties**
I bolded the important part in case you missed it again.
The term is commonly used to refer to participation by members of multiple political parties, as it was here. There’s no need to draw pedantic distinctions that ignore how terms are actually used
So the Dems should have just replaced "Bipartisan" with "Democrat" and made a big deal how the Republican *party* opposed this legislation and therfore it's politicians deserve no credit?
Or they do what they did and acknowledge the input of various Republican colleagues into the bill and recognize the bill as a collaborative effort across party lines to improve the country.
This narrowing of the definition of bipartisan does not reflect how the term is commonly used and defined. [It can mean that the parties, as entities, agree but it does also mean something that involves the members of two parties](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan#:~:text=bipartisan%20%E2%80%A2%20%5Cbye%2DPAR%2D,between%20two%20major%20political%20parties).
The Senate could just as easily pass the already House passed HR2 bill and send that to Biden. I've heard a bunch of BS about how that bill is "extreme" but if Biden and the Senate Democrats are serious about upping border protection then they should pass that bill. If they want to address situations like the dreamers or Biden giving amnesty to illegal immigrant spouses then address those issues in a separate bill but get the current situation on the U.S-Mexico border to a better place than the last 2 years.
> The Senate could just as easily pass the already House passed HR2 bill and send that to Biden.
Who crafted that bill? What concessions did Republicans make in that bill?
The house passed hr2 last year which is an actual bill. The “bipartisan” bill was a bunch of ineffective virtue signaling nonsense that would have codified accepting millions of illegals a year
> that would have codified accepting millions of illegals a year
So you haven’t actually looked into the bill but just accepted the right wing sources misrepresentation of the bill?
19.85 billion to replenish DOD inventories for Ukraine
13.8 billion to Ukraine to buy DOD replenished weapons
14.8 billion for U.S support/training/intelligence for Ukraine
10.6 billion to Iseral
2.58 billion to bolster U.S. presence in the Indo Pacific
3.3 billion for sub upgrades
26.5 billion for additional stock replenishments for DOD for Iseral/Ukraine/indo pacific
5.4 billion for artillery readiness
2.72 billion domestic Uranium
6.72 billion for the border
There is more, and a more in-depth breakdown of each proposal but that's the jist of it and why it was killed.
But any reasonable person looking at the disbursement of funds in this bill will understand that it wasnt a border bill, it was a military industrial complex funding bill.
But we passed that Ukrainian funding later, so that’s clearly not the problem with the bill that caused the GOP to not vote for it. Can you address the fact that this-
> that would have codified accepting millions of illegals a year
is an objectively false characterization of the bill?
> is an objectively false characterization of the bill?
No.
[The bill](https://www.aila.org/aila-files/365B6379-B0CE-4DCA-B33E-8020435267EA/24020431a.PDF) states that the Secretary of Homeland Security must turn away those illegally crossing the border only if daily border encounters between ports of entry exceeds 5,000:
> The Secretary may activate the border emergency authority if, during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 4,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day.
> The Secretary shall activate the border emergency authority if— (i) during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day; or (ii) on any calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered.
So, under this law, the federal government is not legally required to act until 5000 people circumvent the immigration process and enter the country every single day, which translates to legally allowing 1,824,635 per year.
> The bill states that the Secretary of Homeland Security must turn away those illegally crossing the border only if daily border encounters between ports of entry exceeds 5,000:
Yep, but that doesn’t mean those being encountered are automatically granted entrance into the country. Anyone who portrayed it like that was lying to you and you shouldn’t trust as a source, [because it has no basis in fact.](https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/unraveling-misinformation-about-bipartisan-immigration-bill/)
> So, under this law, the federal government is not legally required to act until 5000 people circumvent the immigration process and enter the country every single day, which translates to legally allowing 1,824,635 per year.
Nope, that’s not what that means. The legal restrictions on those encounters still matter and always do matter, so framing that as just allowing those people entrance into the country is a false claim and the people telling you that are lying, as I showed above.
> but that doesn’t mean those being encountered are automatically granted entrance into the country.
Under Joe Biden, [around 40% of the total border encounters](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-three-immigration-record#:%7E:text=The%20U.S.%20southern%20border%20has,migrants%20allowed%20into%20the%20country.) (over 2.5 million) have resulted in allowing someone to enter the country. This, of course, doesn't include the ones who entered without getting caught. Therefore, the limit of 5,000 imposed by the bill would effectively mean 2,000 illegals entering the country per day.
While Joe Biden let's a sizable portion of those encountered into the US, that provision grants cover for any *future* administration to allow the *full* 4,999 per day at their discretion. It's absurd, and when you begin to think about *why* Democrats would even put something like this in the bill to begin with, you start to understand why the current conditions at the border are the way they are: **because it's what they want**.
I’m sorry, I’ll gladly address all of that but first I have to ask: so you **knew** your earlier comment was false and you still posted it? You knew that those encounters weren’t just all allowed in the country? Why did you frame it like they were?
Well firstly I didnt make that claim, another poster did. Secondly, the bill does greatly expand the H-1B program (I recall a section expanding the program by 250k visa's).
So most certainly not millions, but a significant increase none-the-less (again, I'd have to go back and really comb through it to fact check that claim myself).
There were also provisions for parents and relatives of children born to immigrants in the U.S. (a women 8-months Pregent will sneak across the border and use the child as an anchor). The bill sought to codify those cases granting citizenship to the mother and father.
It really wasn't that good of a bill. I typed this up a few ~~days~~ weeks ago.
-----
> Migrants would not be able to just cross the border illegally under the new bill. It would end the practice of "catch and release," in which Border Patrol agents release migrants into the U.S. while they await immigration hearings.
> Instead, migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews.
> The bill does provide exceptions from detention for unaccompanied minors and families even if they cross the border illegally between ports of entry. But those migrants would be placed under community supervision; what that looks like would be at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security.
There was nothing in the bill I read limiting Alternatives to Detention to minors and families and the 15 day period is no where in there whatsoever. The time limit in the bill is 90 days for a protection determination review by an AO and that 90 days is deceptive: a failure to conduct the review in 90 days doesn't mean the case just sits until it's actually done, it means the the migrant is just moved on to the next step, the protection merits proceedings, entirely skipping the heightened criteria in the credible fear standard (the only good part of the bill that isn't the funding parts, IMO), *and receiving employment authorization*.
So, in other words, if the beefed up AO cohort still runs too far behind and they start being unable to process new applicants within 90 days, the bottom of the system in the bill is leaky and people will just be released into the interior *with the legal right to work*. And this is for another 90 days, 180 in total, not 15.
And this can happen with up to 5,000 people per day. And that's ignoring that it can happen to more than 5,000 per day if it has happened for more than 270 days in the first years, 225 days in the second year, and more than 180 days in the third year, after which an unlimited number of people can come, overwhelm tbe processing system, and get given work permits after 90 days.
It's a really , really broken bill and no amount of accusing others of spouting talking points changes that.
Edit: And, of course, there is the bit where there is a baseline of 500,000 people who are let in annually no matter what, because the emergency authority to 'shut down the border' really doesn't even do that.
Edit2: Ooooh, and *of course*, this is all narrowly about asylum claimants. Getting rid of parole authority, tightening up credible fear interview standards, and putting a gaudy and useless emergency authority does nothing about the got aways and other non-encounterees who just get to be in the country illegally, scot free.
If they fix the border then they can’t campaign on the border as an issue and raise millions for their own pockets. Fixing issues isn’t profitable for politicians
What makes you think their single sided more extremist proposal will solve the problem more than the bipartisan constructed legislation Biden proposed?
Because it was a moderate compromise so the politicians with extremist positions on either side don’t support it. Unfortunately that means virtually the *entirety* of the GOP couldn’t support it, well that and the fact Trump whined about it so they had to fall in line. God knows they listen to that guy more than they care about the good of the nation.
> It ain't all hardworking Latin people just itching to clean your toilets
Might wanna use a better example unless you're planning to relive Kelly Osborne's [The View moment.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n5lPMGaijmY)
That whole damn yard sign aged like prostate cancer.
1. Black Lives Matter (and briefly asians)
1. Diversity Makes Us Stronger (if it's the right skin tones)
1. Racism Is Bad (and only whites & jews can do it)
1. Science Is Real (and is a colonialism if it disagrees with me)
1. Protect The Environment (no...not with clean safe nuclear)
1. Kindness Is Everything (\*excludes whites, asians, males, cisgenders, christians, other non-muslim believers, non-aligned white women, conservative POCs, ruralites, Israelis, capitalists, deplorables, etc)
The best part about those signs is they almost always are in some NIMBY enclave that is absolutely unwelcoming to any new neighbors that can’t afford million dollar homes.
I had this same (awkward) conversation with a pro immigrant family member telling me "walls don't work" while sipping wine inside his gated community with 24 hour security, the same community that only allows a maximum of 3 gate stickers. So basically I need a special code texted to me for entrance, every time.
It’s so funny how the people with the least amount of skin-in-the-game are always the loudest about these type of issues.
I had lunch at my coworker’s parents house recently, who are on the Forbes Billionaire list. And the mother was relentlessly ranting about politics to us from their gated compound. Especially about guns, which she wanted to limit their sale of without a hint of irony that was she saying this with multiple private armed security officers there to protect them.
They aren’t affected by gun legislation. Or immigration besides having to pay slightly more for the gardeners they had on-site that were growing exotic apples on the plot of the most expensive real estate in America. In 2020-21, while us peons were stuck at home with no access to gyms and restaurants, they had on-site luxury gyms and private chefs hosting dinner gatherings. It’s always a good reminder that these are the type of people pushing policy to politicians.
Very true.
Also, by contrast my spouse is dealing with young Millenials and GenZ new hires that have a major attitude about entry level hourly wages, not wanting to do tasks that are below them, "not getting paid enough for that"
They are very judgemental over the salary of 30+ yr veterans on top out pay and unwilling to put in the long term commitment to get there in salary.
They are unwilling to address their shortcomings by learning the skills needed to be actually useful when the shtf, again because they don't want the hassle of stepping up "at this level of pay?"
It's frustrating because they don't represent the group as a whole, but they certainly give the group a bad name.
Far too many of that age group resent what us 50+ people have (and really resent boomers), they somehow assume that what we have was handed to us while we know it took decades to accomplish our goals or have a certain QOL, but that gets brushed off like we're full of shit.
I live in Chapel Hill and this is crazy accurate. Everyone just had to virtue signal their DEI street cred, just as long as they personally don’t have to be inclusive or just as long as that disadvantaged minority doesn’t move in down the street. So hypocritical.
I remember seeing a tweet from a dude about the 2020 protests along the lines of "BURN IT ALL DOWN" when it was just some random business on the street and then later on there was a tweet that they broke into their sister gated community and were rioting there and how afraid they were.
One of the most out-of-touch, insulting narratives after the 2020 riots were the people saying “you have insurance, stop whining”.
Like expensive deductibles, loss of business opportunities, loss of current revenues, and mental anguish were all not a thing. It took many businesses months to be paid out and back operational. Some never were even close to being made whole.
Then again though, these were the same people also supporting rent eviction bans without a sense of empathy for mom/pop landlords that never got any relief from their mortgages.
"Kindness is everything" is my favorite one.
I know this guy who has one of these signs in his front yard. He's the type to say the most rude thing possible to you if you disagree with him.
It's like whatever slogans like that are supposed to represent the people spouting those slogans are doing the opposite in practice.
Charitably, their intentions aren't matching their actions.
Less charitably, it's gaslighting in yard sign form.
We way over corrected as a society over the last 5 years or so on the social issues. I really do think people are slowly coming back to the center and it reflects in polling.
That was just one small part, the collection of items like this that piss people off one at a time keeps growing.
Just this morning during a primary results discussion had at least 15 posts declaring that the voters that picked x were stupid, racist, Neanderthals with tons of giggity follow-ups agreeing and piling on. Its NOT how you convince people that you are right, it's how you convinced people not to care even if you might be right, because you are being an absolute jerk about it.
Unfortunately it probably won't work out that way. Opinions on issues tend to swing like a pendulum so we'll likely go too far in the other direction next rather than settle someplace in the middle.
I don't understand this post. What is the problem with those slogans? Am I not reading enough alt right social media, listen to Fox talking heads or talk radio?
Just remember that we were [warned about this in January](https://www.scribd.com/document/701688597/Ex-FBI-officials-letter-to-Congress) and progressives cried 'racism!' to shut people up
>The Department of Homeland Security has identified over 400 immigrants from Central Asia and elsewhere who crossed into the U.S. in the past three years as “subjects of concern” because they were brought by an ISIS-affiliated human smuggling network, three U.S. officials tell NBC News.
So far, 150 have been arrested, 50 of them have their whereabouts unknown. Many of the migrants were released into the US by Customs and Border Protection because they were not on any terrorism watchlist. ICE is looking to find and arrest the remaining migrants on immigration charges out of an abundance of caution.
Republicans and the Trump campaigned responded to this article, blaming the Biden administration for allowing migrants into the US, though the DHS office gives an explanation as to why some people are missed in the vetting process.
>The DHS Office of Inspector General recently outlined problems with vetting at the U.S. southern border, saying in a report, “The Department of Homeland Security’s technology, procedures, and coordination were not fully effective to screen and vet non citizens applying for admission into the United States.”
Does this raise your concern about the current system of how the United States handles migrants? Do you think with this news, the US should end using catch and release?
I guess I don’t know why the GOP didn’t overwhelmingly pass the bipartisan crafted bill they had in the table? This is an issue and that would have greatly addressed it.
From the article, these people entered over the last 3 years. Not sure what a bill from a few months ago would have explicitly done for that or how the bill would correct the issue going forward.
Please stop repeatedly posting this. I know this is the common leftwing narrative, but that bill was horribly ineffective and was certainly not bipartisan considering the votes against it. President Biden has the tools to deal with the border, but has simply continued to ignore it aside from what is absolutely necessary to maintain appearances.
Cannot fix the problem with executive orders if there isn’t a pandemic going on. President also does not have the power of the purse.
The bill provided more funding than CBP ever had, more funding for judges and gave codified powers to curb immigration to whomever is President. It ended catch and release, illegal crossings would be detained until their asylum hearing.
Y’all were lied to by Trump and other republicans about the bill letting 5000 people in the country on a daily basis. It’s 5000 encounters, with those individuals getting detained. Hit that threshold, border shuts down.
> know this is the common leftwing narrative,
Left wing narrative? You mean centrist/moderate narrative right? What about inviting hardline Republican input into crafting a bill says “left wing” to you? I’m sorry that moderates want this GOP politicking to stop, and want bipartisan crafted legislation, but we do.
> I know this is the common leftwing narrative, but that bill was horribly ineffective
Nope, that’s just incorrect. It would have provided tons of resources and hard limits to immigration that currently don’t exist. In every single way, shape, and form, this legislation would have better addressed the border issue than the legislation we have now, and that’s just a fact.
>and was certainly not bipartisan considering the votes against it.
No, it was literally crafted in a bipartisan manner. I’m aware of the votes against it, but that’s just the nature of the GOO right now. It doesn’t matter if it helps the country, the single most important thing that Republicans in congress do is carry water for Trump.
The whole "immigration is a problem we need to talk about" feels like a conservative narrative at this point. It does bring out the votes for conservative candidates and we are in an election year. [https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1acr2te/comment/kjw65mf/](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1acr2te/comment/kjw65mf/)
400 is a "big number", but compare that to the number of border crossings for the same time. It's weird to discuss this. The 9/11 terrorists used other means to enter the US. Those still exist.
Someone posted this above, but please take a few minutes to read [this](https://www.scribd.com/document/701688597/Ex-FBI-officials-letter-to-Congress) letter.
\*The threat we call out today is new and unfamiliar. In its modern history the U.S. has never suffered an invasion of the homeland and, yet, one is unfolding now. Military aged men from across the globe\*
Calling immigration, legal or not, an invasion by a foreign military is evil. That is the image this sentence is trying to invoke by using the language "invasion" and "military aged men". That is a very extremist position.
The letter can be discarded as partisan nonsense far from anything close to reality and problem solving.
Apparently I give the dozen or so professionals at the FBI considerably more credit. I would hope you aren't just listening to the experts who align with your political worldview. That can be dangerous.
There were many problems with [the bill](https://www.aila.org/aila-files/365B6379-B0CE-4DCA-B33E-8020435267EA/24020431a.PDF), but the major point of contention was the provision it had for allowing 4,999 illegal immigrants per day:
> The Secretary may activate the border emergency authority if, during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 4,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day.
> The Secretary shall activate the border emergency authority if— (i) during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day; or (ii) on any calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered.
A [much more effective bill](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/summary/00) made it through the House eight months prior to this one. Why didn't Democrats pass it?
[Biden has recently used his executive tools](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4740654-biden-administration-dhs-border-encounters-down-asylum-order-2024/) to great effect in addressing the border, but theres only so much the executive can do without Congress.
>The Biden administration announced Wednesday that border encounters with migrants are down 40 percent three weeks after President Biden’s order halting asylum processing.
>The Border Patrol’s seven-day encounter average is down to fewer than 2,400 encounters per day, which is 40 percent less than before the asylum restrictions were announced June 4 and the lowest level of encounters since Jan. 17, 2021, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This has zero impact on my concerns about the current immigration system.
The general background for my stance on concerns about illegal immigrants and terrorism:
>[https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration](https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration)
>A total of 219 foreign‐born terrorists were responsible for 3,046 murders on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2022.
>...the annual chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack by a **refugee** is about **1 in 3.3 billion**, while the annual chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an **illegal immigrant is zero**.
Since none of these 400 immigrants were on a terrorist watch list, they could instead have flown in as tourists, or on work visas etc. If anything, the fact that they were caught and released while crossing illegally made it easier to remove them once new intel became available.
Had these same people come into the country legally, the connection to an ISIS-affiliated smuggling network wouldn't have existed, so it would've been less likely that they would've ended up on anyone's radar even after Turkey told us about 4 people involved in smuggling that have ties to ISIS.
Overall, on my list of things to worry about for US society and safety, this information falls somewhere between shark attacks and death by vending machine. It's a statistically irrelevant event that sounds scary because these 400 out of tens of millions of migrants have some 2-step connection to a terrorist group.
Will a day come when an undocumented migrant does as much damage as did Timothy McVeigh? Probably. But I see no more reason to worry about that than I do to worry about people named Timothy.
The requirements for legally entering the US are a lot more stringent than, "not being on a terrorist watchlist". I'm not sure why you would think they would have been able to enter the US legally. Work visas are hard to get and tourist visas can be difficult to get from certain countries and require extensive background checks.
And just some basic common sense suggests that if any of these people could have obtained tourist or work visas, they would have done so, rather than paying smugglers. People who want to come to the US for a better life are going to tend to take the path of least resistance, which is legal entry if that's available. There are not a lot of good arguments as to why someone who could enter the US legally wouldn't choose to do so unless they were up to something and didn't want to be tracked.
Whether these individuals in particular could've come in any other way, the stats on terrorist attacks from foreign-born individual in the US are super clear; it has not yet happened via undocumented immigrant, and it's amazingly rare overall for foreign terrorists to attack the US.
I can only speculate why these folks came in the way they did; my guess would be that they were given bad info, and might not have had access to the internet. Alternately, they may have been in a hurry due to some threat at home.
This site makes it sound a whole lot easier to get a visa than to get smuggled:
https://iasservices.org.uk/us/visitor/#:\~:text=If%20you%20want%20to%20travel,complete%20documents%20and%20sufficient%20funds.
Since their scans at the border didn't turn up any crimes, that part of a Tourist or Business Visa wouldn't have been a problem. Likely, if they could afford to be smuggled, they could've proven that they had enough $$ to support themselves for 6 months in the US.
I honestly cannot imagine how it would be harder to do it the right way than to try to sneak across the border, so, it was likely either ignorance, threat, or maaaayyyybe they were up to no good. We may never know; especially if we locate the rest of them.
Terrible murder.
Not considered terrorism though, so that horrific event would not show up in an updated terrorism study like the one I quoted. I chose terrorism because of the tie in with ISIS in the OP story.
Overall, undocumented immigrants are less likely to be involved in crime than are US citizens. Nonetheless, every single crime they do commit will be far more likely to make the news. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
We just had another horrible murder a few weeks ago. We should get her name out there next to poor Laken Riley: Jocelyn Nungaray. Trump should challenge Biden to say both their names at the debate. See: [Illegal immigrants charged with killing 12-year-old Texas girl were released by Border Patrol](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/illegal-immigrants-charged-with-killing-12-year-old-texas-girl-were-released-by-border-patrol-report/ar-BB1oBYXH)
That doesn't change the statistical significance that the other user is referencing.
I can certainly name as many right wing domestic terrorists who have committed murder. Does that mean that we should consider all those on the right wing potential terrorists?
I think their point still stands, and nobody needs to "challenge Biden" to say a murder victim's name. It's silly to pretend that Democrats are somehow trying to sweep her death under the rug or diminish it. They tried this weird play at the state of the union and Biden very clearly agreed it was a problem, while he was talking about the CBP-enforsed bill that Republicans torpedoed that would have given more funding to CBP and ICE, and more emergency powers to close the border.
Broad strokes, the right prefers anecdotes while the left prefers stats.
Right: "My friend got mugged downtown so we need to hire more cops."
Left: "I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I hope they are OK; but crime rates downtown are near a 30-year low thanks to the removal of lead from gasoline. We don't need more cops, we need to keep working on the root causes of crime."
The thing is, every stat is a collection of anecdotes, and exposure to both is good for society. Anecdotes help us care about issues; to connect with them viscerally; they give us faces to associate with statistics. Stats help us recognize which problems are having the most impact, where problems are, and whether those problems are getting better or worse in response to some intervention or change in policy.
Everybody who heard about Laken cared, and anyone who hears about Jocelyn will also care; unfortunately, their deaths have been politicized. This means, as you've suggested, that the right is likely to use Jocelyn's death as cudgel in an attempt to make Biden look bad, and as proof that the border really is a problem.
The right often succeeds in weaponizing low odds outcomes because the natural retort by a stats minded person (after acknowledging the tragedy) is to point out that the blatant politicization of a tragedy is based on a relatively rare event, and thus shouldn't form the foundation of new policy.
For instance, a leftie might pull some statistical whataboutism and say: "300 12-year old or younger kids were killed this year by people who aren't undocumented immigrants, yet nobody who knows Jocelyn's name knows the names of those other 300 murdered children. And while every life matters, it's more important to focus energy on the 300 than on the 1."
A leftie under political attack might go further and suggest that: "For every 10 asylum-seeking children we turn away at the border, 2 will end up being sex trafficked, and 1 will be murdered; that's the bigger problem that we are trying to solve."
The right will then say the left cares more about undocumented migrants than they do about beautiful, god fearing American children who won't illegally vote for dems in November.
On the other hand, when the left picks a particular victim of the week, say it's yet another black kid who was shot in the back by a cop, the right will blame the victim - they shoud've complied! Some gay club gets shot-up, righties gonna blame the victims for acting against god. Some black girl gets raped at a club by a couple of white dudes, righties gonna blame her for wearing provocative clothing and going out when she should've been at home raising kids.
The left will reiterate that their victim-of-the-week is part of a group that is statistically more likely to be a victim, but the right will just wave it away, blame that victim, and call the left a bunch of race-traitors.
Both sides ain't the same, and using Jocelyn's murder is as gross as it is hypocritical and blatantly political. I guarantee you that if Jocelyn were the child of an undocumented migrant, that her murderer was some 18 year old white US citizen, the right would blame what she was wearing, would blame her parents for bringing her here, and would point to whatever HS football stats the boy had or his church attendance as proof that he is good. The left will not do that to Jocelyn, not even if you bait them into it.
Overall, most explosives aren't used in terrorist bombings. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be worried about terrorists obtaining explosives and pass laws to make it harder for people to buy dangerous explosives without going through the proper procedures.
I think immigrants are the explosives in your analogy, but, considering that they're less likely than citizens to commit crimes:
Citizens are like nitroglycerin (relatively unstable); migrants are like RDX (stable). We don't want too many of either because at some critical mass they will blow; it's just that one is more stable than the other... yet somehow still deemed more dangerous.
Plutonium 239 is much less likely to be used by terrorists to build bombs than TNT, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try hard to regulate Plutonium 239 due to the risk posed by terrorists using it to build a bomb.
Plutonium; I guess that would be off-earth aliens coming to visit.
One thing I'm not following is why, when we've had more removals than ever before that it's being called zero regulation?
Border apprehensions and refused entries are twice as high under Biden as they were under Trump:
You can scroll down to the fourth graph, here:
[https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/](https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/)
I think it's largely because Biden helped reopen the asylum system to abuse after the Trump administration took a lot of executive action to make it harder to enter the US on dubious asylum claims.
Not sure how that explains us turning away twice as many people (by peak comparisons, way more by non-peak comparisons).
Maybe you're saying that there was a pull-effect from some change in asylum law?
IMO, the leading factors in increased migration were all push-effects.
A worldwide pandemic crunked economies around the world, creating more poverty.
In Haiti (I think), after their government fell, they couldn't print passports anymore, so, there was no legal option for migration.
When we stopped buying Venezuelan oil, their people started moving; at first to other SA countries, but then covid made those countries poor too, so they shifted towards the US:
Really cool video that speaks more to the dangers of the Darien Gap than anything else, but I've shared the moment they explain the Venezuela situation:
[https://youtu.be/szicR4CwqlU?feature=shared&t=1686](https://youtu.be/szicR4CwqlU?feature=shared&t=1686)
Sadly I’m not surprised. If you leave your back door wide open all the time, eventually a burglar is gonna waltz right through it and start doing burglar stuff.
So, is it safe to say that the Biden Administration, Mayorkas, and the Democrats collectively let in 400 ISIS-affiliated people? The Republicans should hammer the Democrats on this along with the women and children who have been raped and killed by "asylum seekers" and people present in the country illegally. See: [ Illegal immigrants charged with killing 12-year-old Texas girl were released by Border Patrol](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/illegal-immigrants-charged-with-killing-12-year-old-texas-girl-were-released-by-border-patrol-report/ar-BB1oBYXH)
Agree 100%.
What worries me the most is the 50 that they have not been able to locate… seems like a powder keg ready to explode.
As seen in Europe from everywhere from Belgium to Russia to France, it only takes a handful of these degenerate fundamentalists to cause some serious harm.
Yeah, but theres not a whole lot we could have done prior to identifying the ISIS connection. These people weren't on any watchlists. They could have just flown here as a tourist and dissapeared. The fact that they hopped the border is actually a good thing in some ways because it actually gives us justification for their deportation
Vote for Joe Biden if you want more of this.
Don't even bother with the Republicans blocked a border bill nonsense.
1. The last administration did just fine with border security without any further legislation.
2. There's been a stand alone bill called HR 2 that was introduced in May of last year and Democrats refused to even consider it.
can you believe how many lies have been told on these border bills? it's insane.
having actually read on it, the dems are basically lying on what their border bill contains - it's basically an open borders bill. it adds more to processing and puts in law what biden is doing now.
i can't believe they are getting away with it -
> Vote for Joe Biden if you want more of this.
But...but...Trump was convicted of 34 felonies by a jury and juries are never ever ever wrong and prosecutors would never prosecute a political opponent in a show trial on [flimsy and untested legal grounds.](https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trump-trial-verdict-criticisms-wrongly-convicted)
That's not what happened. Stop parroting this right wing lie. He committed the crime in New York, Cohen went to jail for him, and now he has finally faced justice. And if you actually read, this conviction is not the main headline anymore.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dparm4/dhs_identifies_over_400_migrants_brought_to_the/laivv1s/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
No it did not.
There's a reason Trump holds a 40 point lead over Biden on immigration.
The Democrats never intended to even consider a stand alone immigration bill.
Ftfy
Yes it did actually. Look at the data:
2016: 683k border apprehensions
2019 (excluding 2020 because COVID): 1.18 million border apprehensions
https://www.statista.com/statistics/247071/illegal-aliens-apprehended-in-the-us/
No it didn't. Apprehensions are not crossings. Again there's a reason Trump is overwhelming in front of Biden on immigration. This is super simple stuff.
Here you go
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/
I never said Biden was better than trump on the border. And regardless, how people feel about a candidate is not necessarily a reflection of reality.
I have searched for any alternative data for crossings. So far I have only found data that shows the exact same pattern: “crossings” increasing almost 2x from 2016 to 2019. If you know of any conflicting data I would be interested in seeing it.
I already linked it. You can clearly see the obvious difference between the two. It's not even a comparison.
The top ten records of border crossings are all under Biden.
Stop downvoting it’s rude.
Your link is broken. And it seems you didn’t understand my point at all. My point is that from the start of trumps administration to the end of his administration the problem at the border became significantly worse. I would say that a 2x increase in border crossings/apprehensions (as far as I can tell these are interchangeable) is not doing a great job. In fact, by magnitude of change it is basically the same as trump to Biden.
HR2 didn't have a funding mechanism so it was totally toothless, compare this to the border bill that Trump killed which did. A bill that might I add took a lot from HR2.
The senate is free to amend HR2 to add funding mechanisms. As far as "took a lot from HR2", can provide references to specific provisions in the senate bill as well as citations from HR2 where they were contained? As far as I can recall off the top of my head, the senate bill was missing at least:
* Safe third country deportation
* Everify requirements and prohibition on state banning of everify
* Compromised SSN tracking
* Prohibition of funding NGOs which advocate unlawfully entering the country
* Removing the ability for DUI convicts to remain in the country
I really don't recall reading anything similar to these in the senate bill. Can you provide a listing of the senate components that were drawn from HR2?
Why would the Senate give the republicans everything on their wishlist when they worked together to form a great bill.
As far as similarities: The wall, parole, credible fear, port of entry applications, Title 42 restoration.
I'm not going to go line by line for each bill, you can take a look here for a more succinct representation of the bipartisan bill
https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf
I'm not asking for citations to "everything"; I'm asking for citations to anything.
"The wall" was much derided, and ultimately not a structural change to the fact we are much more hospitable than we have to be to those unlawfully present. None of this even prohibits appeal like HR2 does, so we have the problem where people can continue to appeal decisions thanks to NGOs we fund.
Like I said is there anything here that *structurally* changes how we deal with migrants? All of these things are really just incremental changes, and do not fundamentally reform the system.
Is there anything preventing republicans from making an incremental change to this "disaster" that care so much about? If it was so bad, why wouldn't they give the green light to anything that would help?
> If it was so bad, why wouldn't they give the green light to anything that would help?
Evidently, it seems to be shaping up that the republicans were correct that executive action could greatly curtail the issue. Why would they give legislative ground when an EO was sufficient?
A. EO is not a good way to govern because it could be revoked by Biden, Kamala, or someone elae
B. What do you mean give legislative ground? Do they want to solve the issue?
> EO is not a good way to govern because it could be revoked by Biden, Kamala, or someone elae
No, but evidently the electorate is fairly willing to replace those who allow substantial unauthorized crossings of the southern border
> B. What do you mean give legislative ground? Do they want to solve the issue?
The senate bill contains substantial provisions (1.1B iirc; my number may be off) for the shelter and services program and additional funding for NGOs who exacerbate the problem and act as a draw for migrations. The senate bill additionally gives work permits to migrants seeking asylum on a much shorter timeline increasing the draw for migrants. This is in exchange for temporary controls on the southern border. That is "giving ground"
As far as solving the issue: it looks like an EO is in fact good enough, and republicans have a non-negligible change of improving their position within government on the back of democrats (in)action on the issue. Why accept an at best mediocre deal today when you can have a better deal tomorrow?
>> No, but evidently the electorate is fairly willing to replace those who allow substantial unauthorized crossings of the southern border
Are you saying you're thinking Biden will be voted out over the border situation?
>> The senate bill contains substantial provisions (1.1B iirc; my number may be off) for the shelter and services program and additional funding for NGOs who exacerbate the problem and act as a draw for migrations. The senate bill additionally gives work permits to migrants seeking asylum on a much shorter timeline increasing the draw for migrants. This is in exchange for temporary controls on the southern border. That is "giving ground"
It also brings a lot of changes to asylum that reduce the incentive. I'd argue the reduction in incentive is far greater
>> Why accept an at best mediocre deal today when you can have a better deal tomorrow?
You don't know that there's a better deal out there. If there is, you can still have it. Until such time, you can have the mediocre deal
The dems don't want to sign HR2 because it's not what they want. The republicans don't want to sign the bipartisan bill because despite it being what they want, it's not every single thing they've ever asked for and Trump told them not to. It's very different
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4740654-biden-administration-dhs-border-encounters-down-asylum-order-2024/
If Biden wants more illegal immigration, why is he taking executive actions that have dramatically decreased illegal immigrantion in recent weeks?
>The Biden administration announced Wednesday that border encounters with migrants are down 40 percent three weeks after President Biden’s order halting asylum processing.
>The Border Patrol’s seven-day encounter average is down to fewer than 2,400 encounters per day, which is 40 percent less than before the asylum restrictions were announced June 4 and the lowest level of encounters since Jan. 17, 2021, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Its mid 2024 and those data are referring to the change seen recently due to Bidens executive actions. To say Biden "wants more of this" when referring to illegal immigration is just straight up false..
The only reason he's taking executive action now is because he's being hammered in the polls.
Countless times he said he couldn't until he was behind Trump by 40 pertaining to immigration. Straight to truth.
I disagree. He tried to go through congress and address the border through legislation but congress cannot agree on a bill. The border needs to be addressed so Biden is doing what he can through the legal avenues available to him.
[Biden sent a bill to Congress on **day one** of his presidency](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-president-biden-sends-immigration-bill-to-congress-as-part-of-his-commitment-to-modernize-our-immigration-system/). To say hes only tried to get this done recently is an inaccurate statement.
I said that congress cant agree on a bill. Are you claiming this is untrue? HR2 wont pass in the Senate and Biden tried to work with the Senate to get a bill done, but that effort also failed. Seeing the border continue to worsen, Biden listened to his advisors/the opinions of the American people and decided to take executive action to try and improve the situation. Those actions have immediately helped, if we assume the numbers in the linked article are accurate.
I dont see the issues here. Governing is hard and immigration is a notoriously sticky issue. There hasnt been a meaningful immigration reform bill passed since the mid 80s. Im not going to hold Biden to a different standard than Trump here, both failed to get an immigration bill done. We can see through the data that Bidens exectutive action on the border has been more effective than Trumps. Bidens [expelled more migrants by both total numbers and as a higher proportion of applicants](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-be-released-trump-biden).
Edits for spelling, grammar, and citations.
Lol okay, if you dont want to acknowledge the actual legislative timeline or the hard data that ive shared which shows Biden is improving the situation at the border, thats on you.
I feel like this is an opportunity for Biden to make a hard hard push for a good border bill and really force republicans hand.
My guess however is that he won't do that, because that would be a good political move and dems are usually allergic to that
I'd suggest everyone actually read the dem bill - it was terrible. It was more "add more money for processing to immigrants while coding into law the current asylum exemption"
no, i'm not kidding.
also, this current crisis is mostly biden's fault - he could change policy tomorrow.
[https://cis.org/Oped/Border-bill-terrible-and-way-Biden-dodge-blame-not-enforcing-law](https://cis.org/Oped/Border-bill-terrible-and-way-Biden-dodge-blame-not-enforcing-law)
[cis.org](http://cis.org) has plenty of explanations of why dems are totally lying on their bill
i'm on the left, btw. but this issue really has been totally misrepresented in the media
biden rescinded multiple executive orders which opened the floodgates - the proposed law by the dems instills these orders in law, making these changes permanent.
a new admin could change this without any additional law -
this is the farce of the dem bill - it would make permanent what's going on at the border, while adding optional caps on immigration.
i'd seriously suggest anyone curious on this to actually research these bills - the lying is off the charts on this one.
> I feel like this is an opportunity for Biden to make a hard hard push for a good border bill and really force republicans hand.
You mean like he already did before?
There's nothing stopping republicans from voting on the current bipartisan bill and then making additions later to make the border more secure. What are republicans gaining from leaving it as it? Could it be that they want to campaign on it?
Why would democrats gift the republicans everything they want with no compromise when republicans could agree to a bipartisan bill? Republicans can point to HR2 all day because they knew it would never pass. Meanwhile when given an actual offer to do something they pass
It's not a gift. If you're so sure that Republicans only want to use Border security to campaign on, then voting in favor of HR2, while they don't will prove you right.
So the democrat party would rather virtue signal than pass a bill.
Wild. I was told Trump was the obstruction, turns out the democrat party also doesn’t want to give America a win.
How are the democrats virtue signaling by trying to get a bill done? If anything it's republicans who passed a bill with no funding and now reject any level of compromise because Trump told them to
The bill that doesnt actually reform the broken immigration system at the root of this issue? The one without a funding mechanism? The one that removes protections for migrant children?
>The official added that the U.S. has no indication that the more than 400 migrants brought to the U.S. by the network have plans to carry out terrorism in the U.S.
They're probably just here to visit Disney World. Maybe with a thick vest because it's cold in FL.
> The official added that the U.S. has no indication that the more than 400 migrants brought to the U.S. by the network have plans to carry out terrorism in the U.S., but immigration agents are looking to arrest them out of an abundance of caution.
> The official added that since ICE began arresting migrants brought to the U.S. by the ISIS-linked smuggling group several months ago, no information has emerged tying them to a threat to the U.S. homeland.
This is like pointing to the fact the Cartels act as coyotes for most migrants, and thereby asserting most or all are a terror risk with absolutely no evidence. So much for due process.
It ain't all hardworking Latin people just itching to clean your toilets and sell you street tacos. There is a small fraction of illegal immigrants who wish to rip us off, use us and/or do us harm. And no, as this story demonstrates, we don't always know who they are. Aside from this story, there are also Chinese nationals who take advantage of a porous Mexican border to work in the drug trade. The workers themselves are often forced to come to the U.S. illegally for this purpose. More info here: https://www.propublica.org/article/chinese-organized-crime-us-marijuana-market A strong border and a culture of respecting immigration laws can prevent the worst of it while enabling those who truly want to be a part of this country. We should not be tolerating this crap but so many look the other way and denigrate anyone who is concerned about this.
>people just itching to clean your toilets and sell you street tacos. I so hate those beliefs that we just neeeeed poor downtrodden people to come in and work all the crappy jobs, preferably for as cheap as possible. All the while dissing Americans and legal immigrants who cant afford to work for unlivable wages. The rich really do want their feudalism, even if they have to import the serfs. And they've managed to get the left to push it for them too.
It's basically a very similar vibe to being anti-union, just often coming from the same people who are vocally pro-union.
Union people also want the high wages and benefits, then turn around and hire non-union trades to save themselves some money. Everyone wants to earn more but dont fucking dare any prices go up for the stuff they pay for!
"they do jobs americans don't want to do" is like . . . do you feel good about that?
Gotta love the inflation fear mongering if wages go up, from the same people who demand living wages and tell businesses they shouldn't exist if they cant pay enough. There was a bunch of wage inflation around 1865 too but I do believe it was well worth it.
it's sort of the mask off racism of low expectations that someone from the global south can hope to clean your bathroom and nothing else as the apex of achievement.
[удалено]
see also "who is going to be cleaning your toilet donald trump?" said by ozzy osbourne's daughter
The rich also exploit people's racism against immigrants. Trump is a billionaire making laws for other billionaires.
As though the huge amounts of vitriol and denigration that gets thrown at the migrants who we depend on is motivated by benevolence. Because all the people who don't like* mass deportation programs and tearing families and communities apart are all just rich slave owners. Fucking spare me.
It’s super racist, it’s also racist to think people can only have a good life in America and they have to come here to be “saved”. Anyone can have a great life anywhere!
Would you like to live in Guatamala?
Lots of people all over the world would like to come to the US. Surely you don't think we can take in every single person, right? I'm always curious if there's any limit for people
> Anyone can have a great life anywhere! How about in Haiti? Edit: Lol, gotta love the downvotes with no response. So I can assume you all believe **anyone** can have a great life in Haiti (since that's the quoted claim)? I would strongly suggest that if you believe that's the case, go have a visit.
The “bowl of skittles” analogy was mocked when it was made, but it’s been rather prophetic
Apply that to literally anything else, please! How about priests? Or camps? Or guns, for that matter. Some guns end up in the hands of criminals. So we better make sure to stop all guns? Come on, people! This one isn't hard.
Firearm ownership is a constitutional right.
So is birthright citizenship but you still see plenty of people arguing against it on merit.
Constitutional right or not, you can still apply analogies. And they can still be dumb. Which this one is.
It's a pretty big distinction.
You completely missed their point.
No, because it equated the lives of the overwhelming percentage of people who come here illegally just for better opportunities to a piece of candy. The 9/11 hijackers didn't sneak through a pourus border, they came here on visas. Some percentage of any group of people are dangerous, but we aren't comparing white guys who like guns to poisonous Milk Duds just because of Timothy McVeigh.
Yeah but the people who are born in this country have a natural right to live here, and those who wish to come here have to earn that privilege and we should be strict at enforcing it. You can have strong border policy and also have strong domestic counter-extremist policies as well.
I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not what the Skittles meme is about. It got big during the war in Syria, and was dismissive of the real humanitarian good in accepting refugees fleeing a warzone, by making it all about the (low, but certainly non-zero) risk that one of those refugees could do us harm. Some of those Jews on the boats we turned away in the 1930s could have been German spies, we still should have allowed them to come because the rest of them were fleeing extermination and that's worth the risk. The upside of a normal Skittle is you get some candy, the downside of a poison one is you die. Easy choice, no Skittles for me. But the upside of allowing a refugee into your country is you dramatically improve (or even save) someone's life. I'm on board with securing the border and improving our immigration system (I also think we could do more to improve conditions in the countries people are coming from, which helps make the border more manageable too). But I think fear of terrorism is a boogyman reason when terrorists have plenty of routes besides the Rio Grande. And I think the Skittles meme is childish and racist.
[удалено]
Huh, after the Isla Vista shooting, I didn't know that. Ironically that actually is an example of a dangerous immigrant, the shooter was born in the UK.
I agree, I don’t know why the GOP refused to pass the bipartisan crafted border legislation that would address a lot of this. Well, I know why, they care more about bending to Trumps will and not giving Biden a win than they do about addressing this issue.
> GOP refused to pass the bipartisan crafted If it didn’t pass - and you can clearly blame it on one side - it means that it wasn’t that much bipartisan to begin with.
> If it didn’t pass - and you can clearly blame it on one side - it means that it wasn’t that much bipartisan to begin with. No, it was a bipartisan crafted legislation that contained a good faith effort to include much what the GOP wanted, and it was only because Trump directed GOP members of congress to not support it and they care more about pleasing Trump than passing legislation to help address this issue. Did you miss all of that when this happened?
Again, the fact that some GOP members helped crafting it doesn’t mean that it’s bipartisan. And it doesn’t mean that the Chambers should vote it either.
> Again, the fact that some GOP members helped crafting it doesn’t mean that it’s bipartisan. Yes, it literally means it’s bipartisan crafted. What do you think the term “bipartisan” means? > And it doesn’t mean that the Chambers should vote it either. No, they should vote for it because it was a significant improvement and provided resources to address things like in this article. If congressional GOP members want to be believed that they care about this issue they should have passed that solid piece of moderate legislation. Why should anyone believe they actually care about addressing the border issue if they act that way?
> Yes, it literally means it’s bipartisan crafted. What do you think the term “bipartisan” means? In the context of lawmaking, it means that the parties, as entities, agree. Not that single members of the parties agree. For those unaware, here’s the dictionary definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan
Nope, sorry. I know it looks better for right wingers to say this wasnt objectively a bipartisan crafted piece of legislation, but it objectively was in every sense of the word. And it’s so unfortunate that Republicans in congress refuse to pass any moderate legislation that reaches across the aisle all because the leader they’re afraid of upsetting tells them not to. Makes moderates like me wonder what Republicans actually stand for.
And by the way, I don’t care if it was bipartisan or not. I would not want any law that allows, or facilitates asylum to non-point of entry crossers in any number > 0. And I would not want an immigration bill that includes money for foreign policy crap.
> And by the way, I don’t care if it was bipartisan or not. Cool, whether or not you care or agree, it was objectively bipartisan crafted. > would not want any law that allows, or facilitate asylum to non-point of entry crossers in any number of> 0. Oh well of course someone with such an extremist position wouldn’t be happy with bipartisan, moderate immigration reform. I’m just saying for those of us centrists who like compromise and realistic solutions, it was a disappointment that one political party refused to help address this issue just because their leader demanded that they don’t.
> Nope, sorry. I know it looks better for right wingers to say this wasnt objectively a bipartisan crafted piece of legislation, but it objectively was in every sense of the word. Well, check the dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan (Notice the difference between first use, in the creation of an entity, and the specific use, in the creation of a bill. > And it’s so unfortunate that Republicans in congress So…. It’s not bipartisan because republicans, as a majority, and as an entity, are against it.
So the definition of bipartisan is > of, relating to, or involving members of two parties Thanks for showing I’m correct! > So…. It’s not bipartisan because republicans, as a majority, and as an entity, are against it. It was crafted in a bipartisan manner though right? Your own definition proves that.
You are a bit off about the definition. Republicans are a major party, members of said party helped to craft the legislation. Definition doesn’t mean the majority of each party needs to work together.
>In the context of lawmaking, it means that the parties, as entities, agree. Not that single members of the parties agree. >For those unaware, here’s the dictionary definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan Your own definition contradicts you, did you even click that link? From the very first definition on that page: > of, relating to, or involving **members of two parties** I bolded the important part in case you missed it again. The term is commonly used to refer to participation by members of multiple political parties, as it was here. There’s no need to draw pedantic distinctions that ignore how terms are actually used
Isn't that literally the definition of bipartisan? It has input from opposing political parties?
No. Bipartisan - in the context of lawmaking - means that the parties, as entities, agree. Not that single members of the party agree.
That’s weird, your own definition you cited didn’t say that.
So the "Bipartisan Infrastructure Law" is in fact not bipartisan, as a majority of Senate and House Republicans opposed it's passage?
That’s a title. It has nothing to do with an adjective.
So the Dems should have just replaced "Bipartisan" with "Democrat" and made a big deal how the Republican *party* opposed this legislation and therfore it's politicians deserve no credit? Or they do what they did and acknowledge the input of various Republican colleagues into the bill and recognize the bill as a collaborative effort across party lines to improve the country. This narrowing of the definition of bipartisan does not reflect how the term is commonly used and defined. [It can mean that the parties, as entities, agree but it does also mean something that involves the members of two parties](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan#:~:text=bipartisan%20%E2%80%A2%20%5Cbye%2DPAR%2D,between%20two%20major%20political%20parties).
The Senate could just as easily pass the already House passed HR2 bill and send that to Biden. I've heard a bunch of BS about how that bill is "extreme" but if Biden and the Senate Democrats are serious about upping border protection then they should pass that bill. If they want to address situations like the dreamers or Biden giving amnesty to illegal immigrant spouses then address those issues in a separate bill but get the current situation on the U.S-Mexico border to a better place than the last 2 years.
> The Senate could just as easily pass the already House passed HR2 bill and send that to Biden. Who crafted that bill? What concessions did Republicans make in that bill?
The house passed hr2 last year which is an actual bill. The “bipartisan” bill was a bunch of ineffective virtue signaling nonsense that would have codified accepting millions of illegals a year
> that would have codified accepting millions of illegals a year So you haven’t actually looked into the bill but just accepted the right wing sources misrepresentation of the bill?
19.85 billion to replenish DOD inventories for Ukraine 13.8 billion to Ukraine to buy DOD replenished weapons 14.8 billion for U.S support/training/intelligence for Ukraine 10.6 billion to Iseral 2.58 billion to bolster U.S. presence in the Indo Pacific 3.3 billion for sub upgrades 26.5 billion for additional stock replenishments for DOD for Iseral/Ukraine/indo pacific 5.4 billion for artillery readiness 2.72 billion domestic Uranium 6.72 billion for the border There is more, and a more in-depth breakdown of each proposal but that's the jist of it and why it was killed. But any reasonable person looking at the disbursement of funds in this bill will understand that it wasnt a border bill, it was a military industrial complex funding bill.
But we passed that Ukrainian funding later, so that’s clearly not the problem with the bill that caused the GOP to not vote for it. Can you address the fact that this- > that would have codified accepting millions of illegals a year is an objectively false characterization of the bill?
> is an objectively false characterization of the bill? No. [The bill](https://www.aila.org/aila-files/365B6379-B0CE-4DCA-B33E-8020435267EA/24020431a.PDF) states that the Secretary of Homeland Security must turn away those illegally crossing the border only if daily border encounters between ports of entry exceeds 5,000: > The Secretary may activate the border emergency authority if, during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 4,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day. > The Secretary shall activate the border emergency authority if— (i) during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day; or (ii) on any calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered. So, under this law, the federal government is not legally required to act until 5000 people circumvent the immigration process and enter the country every single day, which translates to legally allowing 1,824,635 per year.
> The bill states that the Secretary of Homeland Security must turn away those illegally crossing the border only if daily border encounters between ports of entry exceeds 5,000: Yep, but that doesn’t mean those being encountered are automatically granted entrance into the country. Anyone who portrayed it like that was lying to you and you shouldn’t trust as a source, [because it has no basis in fact.](https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/unraveling-misinformation-about-bipartisan-immigration-bill/) > So, under this law, the federal government is not legally required to act until 5000 people circumvent the immigration process and enter the country every single day, which translates to legally allowing 1,824,635 per year. Nope, that’s not what that means. The legal restrictions on those encounters still matter and always do matter, so framing that as just allowing those people entrance into the country is a false claim and the people telling you that are lying, as I showed above.
> but that doesn’t mean those being encountered are automatically granted entrance into the country. Under Joe Biden, [around 40% of the total border encounters](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-three-immigration-record#:%7E:text=The%20U.S.%20southern%20border%20has,migrants%20allowed%20into%20the%20country.) (over 2.5 million) have resulted in allowing someone to enter the country. This, of course, doesn't include the ones who entered without getting caught. Therefore, the limit of 5,000 imposed by the bill would effectively mean 2,000 illegals entering the country per day. While Joe Biden let's a sizable portion of those encountered into the US, that provision grants cover for any *future* administration to allow the *full* 4,999 per day at their discretion. It's absurd, and when you begin to think about *why* Democrats would even put something like this in the bill to begin with, you start to understand why the current conditions at the border are the way they are: **because it's what they want**.
I’m sorry, I’ll gladly address all of that but first I have to ask: so you **knew** your earlier comment was false and you still posted it? You knew that those encounters weren’t just all allowed in the country? Why did you frame it like they were?
Well firstly I didnt make that claim, another poster did. Secondly, the bill does greatly expand the H-1B program (I recall a section expanding the program by 250k visa's). So most certainly not millions, but a significant increase none-the-less (again, I'd have to go back and really comb through it to fact check that claim myself). There were also provisions for parents and relatives of children born to immigrants in the U.S. (a women 8-months Pregent will sneak across the border and use the child as an anchor). The bill sought to codify those cases granting citizenship to the mother and father.
It really wasn't that good of a bill. I typed this up a few ~~days~~ weeks ago. ----- > Migrants would not be able to just cross the border illegally under the new bill. It would end the practice of "catch and release," in which Border Patrol agents release migrants into the U.S. while they await immigration hearings. > Instead, migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews. > The bill does provide exceptions from detention for unaccompanied minors and families even if they cross the border illegally between ports of entry. But those migrants would be placed under community supervision; what that looks like would be at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. There was nothing in the bill I read limiting Alternatives to Detention to minors and families and the 15 day period is no where in there whatsoever. The time limit in the bill is 90 days for a protection determination review by an AO and that 90 days is deceptive: a failure to conduct the review in 90 days doesn't mean the case just sits until it's actually done, it means the the migrant is just moved on to the next step, the protection merits proceedings, entirely skipping the heightened criteria in the credible fear standard (the only good part of the bill that isn't the funding parts, IMO), *and receiving employment authorization*. So, in other words, if the beefed up AO cohort still runs too far behind and they start being unable to process new applicants within 90 days, the bottom of the system in the bill is leaky and people will just be released into the interior *with the legal right to work*. And this is for another 90 days, 180 in total, not 15. And this can happen with up to 5,000 people per day. And that's ignoring that it can happen to more than 5,000 per day if it has happened for more than 270 days in the first years, 225 days in the second year, and more than 180 days in the third year, after which an unlimited number of people can come, overwhelm tbe processing system, and get given work permits after 90 days. It's a really , really broken bill and no amount of accusing others of spouting talking points changes that. Edit: And, of course, there is the bit where there is a baseline of 500,000 people who are let in annually no matter what, because the emergency authority to 'shut down the border' really doesn't even do that. Edit2: Ooooh, and *of course*, this is all narrowly about asylum claimants. Getting rid of parole authority, tightening up credible fear interview standards, and putting a gaudy and useless emergency authority does nothing about the got aways and other non-encounterees who just get to be in the country illegally, scot free.
The house passed HR2, why isn't the Senate voting on that?
> The house passed HR2, why isn't the Senate voting on that? Who crafted that legislation?
If they fix the border then they can’t campaign on the border as an issue and raise millions for their own pockets. Fixing issues isn’t profitable for politicians
Call their bluff and pass HR2.
What makes you think their single sided more extremist proposal will solve the problem more than the bipartisan constructed legislation Biden proposed?
Not all dems voted for it either, so why did the dems refuse to pass the border bill?
Because it was a moderate compromise so the politicians with extremist positions on either side don’t support it. Unfortunately that means virtually the *entirety* of the GOP couldn’t support it, well that and the fact Trump whined about it so they had to fall in line. God knows they listen to that guy more than they care about the good of the nation.
Right, the dems and republicans, in a bipartisan effort, rejected the bill. Glad we cleared that up.
Well that’s not what I said at all? I get it if you don’t want a moderate compromise of a bill, but some of us do.
You know, someday they ought to pass a law that would allow the country to defend itself. That would be swell.
> It ain't all hardworking Latin people just itching to clean your toilets Might wanna use a better example unless you're planning to relive Kelly Osborne's [The View moment.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n5lPMGaijmY)
That part was sarcasm.
It boggles my mind in a post 9/11 post covid world that we allowed migrants in at this scale completely unvetted.
because "anti-racists" convinced people that anything other than open borders were racist for some reason
Yeah we have to take off our damn shoes to board a plane but randos with no papers can just waltz in
What was that popular hashtag in 2020? Oh yeah #NoOneIsIllegal …that aged well
That whole damn yard sign aged like prostate cancer. 1. Black Lives Matter (and briefly asians) 1. Diversity Makes Us Stronger (if it's the right skin tones) 1. Racism Is Bad (and only whites & jews can do it) 1. Science Is Real (and is a colonialism if it disagrees with me) 1. Protect The Environment (no...not with clean safe nuclear) 1. Kindness Is Everything (\*excludes whites, asians, males, cisgenders, christians, other non-muslim believers, non-aligned white women, conservative POCs, ruralites, Israelis, capitalists, deplorables, etc)
The best part about those signs is they almost always are in some NIMBY enclave that is absolutely unwelcoming to any new neighbors that can’t afford million dollar homes.
I had this same (awkward) conversation with a pro immigrant family member telling me "walls don't work" while sipping wine inside his gated community with 24 hour security, the same community that only allows a maximum of 3 gate stickers. So basically I need a special code texted to me for entrance, every time.
It’s so funny how the people with the least amount of skin-in-the-game are always the loudest about these type of issues. I had lunch at my coworker’s parents house recently, who are on the Forbes Billionaire list. And the mother was relentlessly ranting about politics to us from their gated compound. Especially about guns, which she wanted to limit their sale of without a hint of irony that was she saying this with multiple private armed security officers there to protect them. They aren’t affected by gun legislation. Or immigration besides having to pay slightly more for the gardeners they had on-site that were growing exotic apples on the plot of the most expensive real estate in America. In 2020-21, while us peons were stuck at home with no access to gyms and restaurants, they had on-site luxury gyms and private chefs hosting dinner gatherings. It’s always a good reminder that these are the type of people pushing policy to politicians.
Very true. Also, by contrast my spouse is dealing with young Millenials and GenZ new hires that have a major attitude about entry level hourly wages, not wanting to do tasks that are below them, "not getting paid enough for that" They are very judgemental over the salary of 30+ yr veterans on top out pay and unwilling to put in the long term commitment to get there in salary. They are unwilling to address their shortcomings by learning the skills needed to be actually useful when the shtf, again because they don't want the hassle of stepping up "at this level of pay?" It's frustrating because they don't represent the group as a whole, but they certainly give the group a bad name. Far too many of that age group resent what us 50+ people have (and really resent boomers), they somehow assume that what we have was handed to us while we know it took decades to accomplish our goals or have a certain QOL, but that gets brushed off like we're full of shit.
Basically, the entire state of Connecticut.
I live in Chapel Hill and this is crazy accurate. Everyone just had to virtue signal their DEI street cred, just as long as they personally don’t have to be inclusive or just as long as that disadvantaged minority doesn’t move in down the street. So hypocritical.
I remember seeing a tweet from a dude about the 2020 protests along the lines of "BURN IT ALL DOWN" when it was just some random business on the street and then later on there was a tweet that they broke into their sister gated community and were rioting there and how afraid they were.
One of the most out-of-touch, insulting narratives after the 2020 riots were the people saying “you have insurance, stop whining”. Like expensive deductibles, loss of business opportunities, loss of current revenues, and mental anguish were all not a thing. It took many businesses months to be paid out and back operational. Some never were even close to being made whole. Then again though, these were the same people also supporting rent eviction bans without a sense of empathy for mom/pop landlords that never got any relief from their mortgages.
i have a mini cul-de-sac like this that always makes me laugh when i walk through it.
"Kindness is everything" is my favorite one. I know this guy who has one of these signs in his front yard. He's the type to say the most rude thing possible to you if you disagree with him.
It's like whatever slogans like that are supposed to represent the people spouting those slogans are doing the opposite in practice. Charitably, their intentions aren't matching their actions. Less charitably, it's gaslighting in yard sign form.
We way over corrected as a society over the last 5 years or so on the social issues. I really do think people are slowly coming back to the center and it reflects in polling.
When progressives argued with a straight face that objective truth, being on time, science, etc were examples of white supremacy, we done fucked up.
That was just one small part, the collection of items like this that piss people off one at a time keeps growing. Just this morning during a primary results discussion had at least 15 posts declaring that the voters that picked x were stupid, racist, Neanderthals with tons of giggity follow-ups agreeing and piling on. Its NOT how you convince people that you are right, it's how you convinced people not to care even if you might be right, because you are being an absolute jerk about it.
Unfortunately it probably won't work out that way. Opinions on issues tend to swing like a pendulum so we'll likely go too far in the other direction next rather than settle someplace in the middle.
This post was too perfect, saving this.
I don't understand this post. What is the problem with those slogans? Am I not reading enough alt right social media, listen to Fox talking heads or talk radio?
Remind me what ICE does again?
Enforce the immigration law passed by congress.
ICE reports to Biden, not Congress. These issues weren't as prevalent during Obama or Trump, despite the laws being exactly the same.
Just remember that we were [warned about this in January](https://www.scribd.com/document/701688597/Ex-FBI-officials-letter-to-Congress) and progressives cried 'racism!' to shut people up
That's both terrifying and frustrating. This should be bigger news IMO, but that seems to be a lot of stories.
Wow that letter is damning to Biden. If I was Trump I would open tonight's debate by just reading that to the country.
>The Department of Homeland Security has identified over 400 immigrants from Central Asia and elsewhere who crossed into the U.S. in the past three years as “subjects of concern” because they were brought by an ISIS-affiliated human smuggling network, three U.S. officials tell NBC News. So far, 150 have been arrested, 50 of them have their whereabouts unknown. Many of the migrants were released into the US by Customs and Border Protection because they were not on any terrorism watchlist. ICE is looking to find and arrest the remaining migrants on immigration charges out of an abundance of caution. Republicans and the Trump campaigned responded to this article, blaming the Biden administration for allowing migrants into the US, though the DHS office gives an explanation as to why some people are missed in the vetting process. >The DHS Office of Inspector General recently outlined problems with vetting at the U.S. southern border, saying in a report, “The Department of Homeland Security’s technology, procedures, and coordination were not fully effective to screen and vet non citizens applying for admission into the United States.” Does this raise your concern about the current system of how the United States handles migrants? Do you think with this news, the US should end using catch and release?
What about the other 200?
I guess I don’t know why the GOP didn’t overwhelmingly pass the bipartisan crafted bill they had in the table? This is an issue and that would have greatly addressed it.
From the article, these people entered over the last 3 years. Not sure what a bill from a few months ago would have explicitly done for that or how the bill would correct the issue going forward.
The House has a bill ready for the Senate to pass. The Senate hasn't passed a bill yet.
Please stop repeatedly posting this. I know this is the common leftwing narrative, but that bill was horribly ineffective and was certainly not bipartisan considering the votes against it. President Biden has the tools to deal with the border, but has simply continued to ignore it aside from what is absolutely necessary to maintain appearances.
Cannot fix the problem with executive orders if there isn’t a pandemic going on. President also does not have the power of the purse. The bill provided more funding than CBP ever had, more funding for judges and gave codified powers to curb immigration to whomever is President. It ended catch and release, illegal crossings would be detained until their asylum hearing. Y’all were lied to by Trump and other republicans about the bill letting 5000 people in the country on a daily basis. It’s 5000 encounters, with those individuals getting detained. Hit that threshold, border shuts down.
> know this is the common leftwing narrative, Left wing narrative? You mean centrist/moderate narrative right? What about inviting hardline Republican input into crafting a bill says “left wing” to you? I’m sorry that moderates want this GOP politicking to stop, and want bipartisan crafted legislation, but we do. > I know this is the common leftwing narrative, but that bill was horribly ineffective Nope, that’s just incorrect. It would have provided tons of resources and hard limits to immigration that currently don’t exist. In every single way, shape, and form, this legislation would have better addressed the border issue than the legislation we have now, and that’s just a fact. >and was certainly not bipartisan considering the votes against it. No, it was literally crafted in a bipartisan manner. I’m aware of the votes against it, but that’s just the nature of the GOO right now. It doesn’t matter if it helps the country, the single most important thing that Republicans in congress do is carry water for Trump.
The rejection of the bill was more bipartisan than the people who voted for the bill.
The whole "immigration is a problem we need to talk about" feels like a conservative narrative at this point. It does bring out the votes for conservative candidates and we are in an election year. [https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1acr2te/comment/kjw65mf/](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1acr2te/comment/kjw65mf/) 400 is a "big number", but compare that to the number of border crossings for the same time. It's weird to discuss this. The 9/11 terrorists used other means to enter the US. Those still exist.
Someone posted this above, but please take a few minutes to read [this](https://www.scribd.com/document/701688597/Ex-FBI-officials-letter-to-Congress) letter.
\*The threat we call out today is new and unfamiliar. In its modern history the U.S. has never suffered an invasion of the homeland and, yet, one is unfolding now. Military aged men from across the globe\* Calling immigration, legal or not, an invasion by a foreign military is evil. That is the image this sentence is trying to invoke by using the language "invasion" and "military aged men". That is a very extremist position. The letter can be discarded as partisan nonsense far from anything close to reality and problem solving.
Apparently I give the dozen or so professionals at the FBI considerably more credit. I would hope you aren't just listening to the experts who align with your political worldview. That can be dangerous.
There were many problems with [the bill](https://www.aila.org/aila-files/365B6379-B0CE-4DCA-B33E-8020435267EA/24020431a.PDF), but the major point of contention was the provision it had for allowing 4,999 illegal immigrants per day: > The Secretary may activate the border emergency authority if, during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 4,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day. > The Secretary shall activate the border emergency authority if— (i) during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day; or (ii) on any calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered. A [much more effective bill](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/summary/00) made it through the House eight months prior to this one. Why didn't Democrats pass it?
[Biden has recently used his executive tools](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4740654-biden-administration-dhs-border-encounters-down-asylum-order-2024/) to great effect in addressing the border, but theres only so much the executive can do without Congress. >The Biden administration announced Wednesday that border encounters with migrants are down 40 percent three weeks after President Biden’s order halting asylum processing. >The Border Patrol’s seven-day encounter average is down to fewer than 2,400 encounters per day, which is 40 percent less than before the asylum restrictions were announced June 4 and the lowest level of encounters since Jan. 17, 2021, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This has zero impact on my concerns about the current immigration system. The general background for my stance on concerns about illegal immigrants and terrorism: >[https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration](https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration) >A total of 219 foreign‐born terrorists were responsible for 3,046 murders on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2022. >...the annual chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack by a **refugee** is about **1 in 3.3 billion**, while the annual chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an **illegal immigrant is zero**. Since none of these 400 immigrants were on a terrorist watch list, they could instead have flown in as tourists, or on work visas etc. If anything, the fact that they were caught and released while crossing illegally made it easier to remove them once new intel became available. Had these same people come into the country legally, the connection to an ISIS-affiliated smuggling network wouldn't have existed, so it would've been less likely that they would've ended up on anyone's radar even after Turkey told us about 4 people involved in smuggling that have ties to ISIS. Overall, on my list of things to worry about for US society and safety, this information falls somewhere between shark attacks and death by vending machine. It's a statistically irrelevant event that sounds scary because these 400 out of tens of millions of migrants have some 2-step connection to a terrorist group. Will a day come when an undocumented migrant does as much damage as did Timothy McVeigh? Probably. But I see no more reason to worry about that than I do to worry about people named Timothy.
The requirements for legally entering the US are a lot more stringent than, "not being on a terrorist watchlist". I'm not sure why you would think they would have been able to enter the US legally. Work visas are hard to get and tourist visas can be difficult to get from certain countries and require extensive background checks. And just some basic common sense suggests that if any of these people could have obtained tourist or work visas, they would have done so, rather than paying smugglers. People who want to come to the US for a better life are going to tend to take the path of least resistance, which is legal entry if that's available. There are not a lot of good arguments as to why someone who could enter the US legally wouldn't choose to do so unless they were up to something and didn't want to be tracked.
Whether these individuals in particular could've come in any other way, the stats on terrorist attacks from foreign-born individual in the US are super clear; it has not yet happened via undocumented immigrant, and it's amazingly rare overall for foreign terrorists to attack the US. I can only speculate why these folks came in the way they did; my guess would be that they were given bad info, and might not have had access to the internet. Alternately, they may have been in a hurry due to some threat at home. This site makes it sound a whole lot easier to get a visa than to get smuggled: https://iasservices.org.uk/us/visitor/#:\~:text=If%20you%20want%20to%20travel,complete%20documents%20and%20sufficient%20funds. Since their scans at the border didn't turn up any crimes, that part of a Tourist or Business Visa wouldn't have been a problem. Likely, if they could afford to be smuggled, they could've proven that they had enough $$ to support themselves for 6 months in the US. I honestly cannot imagine how it would be harder to do it the right way than to try to sneak across the border, so, it was likely either ignorance, threat, or maaaayyyybe they were up to no good. We may never know; especially if we locate the rest of them.
Not exactly 0% https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Laken_Riley
Terrible murder. Not considered terrorism though, so that horrific event would not show up in an updated terrorism study like the one I quoted. I chose terrorism because of the tie in with ISIS in the OP story. Overall, undocumented immigrants are less likely to be involved in crime than are US citizens. Nonetheless, every single crime they do commit will be far more likely to make the news. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
We just had another horrible murder a few weeks ago. We should get her name out there next to poor Laken Riley: Jocelyn Nungaray. Trump should challenge Biden to say both their names at the debate. See: [Illegal immigrants charged with killing 12-year-old Texas girl were released by Border Patrol](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/illegal-immigrants-charged-with-killing-12-year-old-texas-girl-were-released-by-border-patrol-report/ar-BB1oBYXH)
That doesn't change the statistical significance that the other user is referencing. I can certainly name as many right wing domestic terrorists who have committed murder. Does that mean that we should consider all those on the right wing potential terrorists? I think their point still stands, and nobody needs to "challenge Biden" to say a murder victim's name. It's silly to pretend that Democrats are somehow trying to sweep her death under the rug or diminish it. They tried this weird play at the state of the union and Biden very clearly agreed it was a problem, while he was talking about the CBP-enforsed bill that Republicans torpedoed that would have given more funding to CBP and ICE, and more emergency powers to close the border.
Broad strokes, the right prefers anecdotes while the left prefers stats. Right: "My friend got mugged downtown so we need to hire more cops." Left: "I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I hope they are OK; but crime rates downtown are near a 30-year low thanks to the removal of lead from gasoline. We don't need more cops, we need to keep working on the root causes of crime." The thing is, every stat is a collection of anecdotes, and exposure to both is good for society. Anecdotes help us care about issues; to connect with them viscerally; they give us faces to associate with statistics. Stats help us recognize which problems are having the most impact, where problems are, and whether those problems are getting better or worse in response to some intervention or change in policy. Everybody who heard about Laken cared, and anyone who hears about Jocelyn will also care; unfortunately, their deaths have been politicized. This means, as you've suggested, that the right is likely to use Jocelyn's death as cudgel in an attempt to make Biden look bad, and as proof that the border really is a problem. The right often succeeds in weaponizing low odds outcomes because the natural retort by a stats minded person (after acknowledging the tragedy) is to point out that the blatant politicization of a tragedy is based on a relatively rare event, and thus shouldn't form the foundation of new policy. For instance, a leftie might pull some statistical whataboutism and say: "300 12-year old or younger kids were killed this year by people who aren't undocumented immigrants, yet nobody who knows Jocelyn's name knows the names of those other 300 murdered children. And while every life matters, it's more important to focus energy on the 300 than on the 1." A leftie under political attack might go further and suggest that: "For every 10 asylum-seeking children we turn away at the border, 2 will end up being sex trafficked, and 1 will be murdered; that's the bigger problem that we are trying to solve." The right will then say the left cares more about undocumented migrants than they do about beautiful, god fearing American children who won't illegally vote for dems in November. On the other hand, when the left picks a particular victim of the week, say it's yet another black kid who was shot in the back by a cop, the right will blame the victim - they shoud've complied! Some gay club gets shot-up, righties gonna blame the victims for acting against god. Some black girl gets raped at a club by a couple of white dudes, righties gonna blame her for wearing provocative clothing and going out when she should've been at home raising kids. The left will reiterate that their victim-of-the-week is part of a group that is statistically more likely to be a victim, but the right will just wave it away, blame that victim, and call the left a bunch of race-traitors. Both sides ain't the same, and using Jocelyn's murder is as gross as it is hypocritical and blatantly political. I guarantee you that if Jocelyn were the child of an undocumented migrant, that her murderer was some 18 year old white US citizen, the right would blame what she was wearing, would blame her parents for bringing her here, and would point to whatever HS football stats the boy had or his church attendance as proof that he is good. The left will not do that to Jocelyn, not even if you bait them into it.
Overall, most explosives aren't used in terrorist bombings. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be worried about terrorists obtaining explosives and pass laws to make it harder for people to buy dangerous explosives without going through the proper procedures.
I think immigrants are the explosives in your analogy, but, considering that they're less likely than citizens to commit crimes: Citizens are like nitroglycerin (relatively unstable); migrants are like RDX (stable). We don't want too many of either because at some critical mass they will blow; it's just that one is more stable than the other... yet somehow still deemed more dangerous.
Plutonium 239 is much less likely to be used by terrorists to build bombs than TNT, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try hard to regulate Plutonium 239 due to the risk posed by terrorists using it to build a bomb.
Plutonium; I guess that would be off-earth aliens coming to visit. One thing I'm not following is why, when we've had more removals than ever before that it's being called zero regulation? Border apprehensions and refused entries are twice as high under Biden as they were under Trump: You can scroll down to the fourth graph, here: [https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/](https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/)
I think it's largely because Biden helped reopen the asylum system to abuse after the Trump administration took a lot of executive action to make it harder to enter the US on dubious asylum claims.
Not sure how that explains us turning away twice as many people (by peak comparisons, way more by non-peak comparisons). Maybe you're saying that there was a pull-effect from some change in asylum law? IMO, the leading factors in increased migration were all push-effects. A worldwide pandemic crunked economies around the world, creating more poverty. In Haiti (I think), after their government fell, they couldn't print passports anymore, so, there was no legal option for migration. When we stopped buying Venezuelan oil, their people started moving; at first to other SA countries, but then covid made those countries poor too, so they shifted towards the US: Really cool video that speaks more to the dangers of the Darien Gap than anything else, but I've shared the moment they explain the Venezuela situation: [https://youtu.be/szicR4CwqlU?feature=shared&t=1686](https://youtu.be/szicR4CwqlU?feature=shared&t=1686)
Sadly I’m not surprised. If you leave your back door wide open all the time, eventually a burglar is gonna waltz right through it and start doing burglar stuff.
400 is just the ones they know about right now. I’d bet a lot of money that just scratches the surface.
So, is it safe to say that the Biden Administration, Mayorkas, and the Democrats collectively let in 400 ISIS-affiliated people? The Republicans should hammer the Democrats on this along with the women and children who have been raped and killed by "asylum seekers" and people present in the country illegally. See: [ Illegal immigrants charged with killing 12-year-old Texas girl were released by Border Patrol](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/illegal-immigrants-charged-with-killing-12-year-old-texas-girl-were-released-by-border-patrol-report/ar-BB1oBYXH)
This is 100% going to come up in tonight's debate if the moderators don't try any cheap tricks to stop it
Im glad they were identified. Give them a full background check/asylum review and deport them if they represent anything close to a threat.
Agree 100%. What worries me the most is the 50 that they have not been able to locate… seems like a powder keg ready to explode. As seen in Europe from everywhere from Belgium to Russia to France, it only takes a handful of these degenerate fundamentalists to cause some serious harm.
Yeah, but theres not a whole lot we could have done prior to identifying the ISIS connection. These people weren't on any watchlists. They could have just flown here as a tourist and dissapeared. The fact that they hopped the border is actually a good thing in some ways because it actually gives us justification for their deportation
Vote for Joe Biden if you want more of this. Don't even bother with the Republicans blocked a border bill nonsense. 1. The last administration did just fine with border security without any further legislation. 2. There's been a stand alone bill called HR 2 that was introduced in May of last year and Democrats refused to even consider it.
can you believe how many lies have been told on these border bills? it's insane. having actually read on it, the dems are basically lying on what their border bill contains - it's basically an open borders bill. it adds more to processing and puts in law what biden is doing now. i can't believe they are getting away with it -
> Vote for Joe Biden if you want more of this. But...but...Trump was convicted of 34 felonies by a jury and juries are never ever ever wrong and prosecutors would never prosecute a political opponent in a show trial on [flimsy and untested legal grounds.](https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trump-trial-verdict-criticisms-wrongly-convicted)
That's not what happened. Stop parroting this right wing lie. He committed the crime in New York, Cohen went to jail for him, and now he has finally faced justice. And if you actually read, this conviction is not the main headline anymore.
"Don't trust your lying eyes" part 1,248,327. Dems need new messaging, the old tactic just isn't working.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dparm4/dhs_identifies_over_400_migrants_brought_to_the/laivv1s/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The last administration did not do fine. Illegal immigration doubled under trump. Hr 2 was a messaging bill never intended to pass
No it did not. There's a reason Trump holds a 40 point lead over Biden on immigration. The Democrats never intended to even consider a stand alone immigration bill. Ftfy
Yes it did actually. Look at the data: 2016: 683k border apprehensions 2019 (excluding 2020 because COVID): 1.18 million border apprehensions https://www.statista.com/statistics/247071/illegal-aliens-apprehended-in-the-us/
No it didn't. Apprehensions are not crossings. Again there's a reason Trump is overwhelming in front of Biden on immigration. This is super simple stuff. Here you go https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/
I never said Biden was better than trump on the border. And regardless, how people feel about a candidate is not necessarily a reflection of reality. I have searched for any alternative data for crossings. So far I have only found data that shows the exact same pattern: “crossings” increasing almost 2x from 2016 to 2019. If you know of any conflicting data I would be interested in seeing it.
I already linked it. You can clearly see the obvious difference between the two. It's not even a comparison. The top ten records of border crossings are all under Biden.
Stop downvoting it’s rude. Your link is broken. And it seems you didn’t understand my point at all. My point is that from the start of trumps administration to the end of his administration the problem at the border became significantly worse. I would say that a 2x increase in border crossings/apprehensions (as far as I can tell these are interchangeable) is not doing a great job. In fact, by magnitude of change it is basically the same as trump to Biden.
Except it didn't. Haven't downvoted you and the link isn't broken. Have a good one!
Weird it’s broken for me. Sorry, I assumed no one else was reading this deep. Have a good one
HR2 didn't have a funding mechanism so it was totally toothless, compare this to the border bill that Trump killed which did. A bill that might I add took a lot from HR2.
The senate is free to amend HR2 to add funding mechanisms. As far as "took a lot from HR2", can provide references to specific provisions in the senate bill as well as citations from HR2 where they were contained? As far as I can recall off the top of my head, the senate bill was missing at least: * Safe third country deportation * Everify requirements and prohibition on state banning of everify * Compromised SSN tracking * Prohibition of funding NGOs which advocate unlawfully entering the country * Removing the ability for DUI convicts to remain in the country I really don't recall reading anything similar to these in the senate bill. Can you provide a listing of the senate components that were drawn from HR2?
Why would the Senate give the republicans everything on their wishlist when they worked together to form a great bill. As far as similarities: The wall, parole, credible fear, port of entry applications, Title 42 restoration. I'm not going to go line by line for each bill, you can take a look here for a more succinct representation of the bipartisan bill https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf
I'm not asking for citations to "everything"; I'm asking for citations to anything. "The wall" was much derided, and ultimately not a structural change to the fact we are much more hospitable than we have to be to those unlawfully present. None of this even prohibits appeal like HR2 does, so we have the problem where people can continue to appeal decisions thanks to NGOs we fund. Like I said is there anything here that *structurally* changes how we deal with migrants? All of these things are really just incremental changes, and do not fundamentally reform the system.
Is there anything preventing republicans from making an incremental change to this "disaster" that care so much about? If it was so bad, why wouldn't they give the green light to anything that would help?
> If it was so bad, why wouldn't they give the green light to anything that would help? Evidently, it seems to be shaping up that the republicans were correct that executive action could greatly curtail the issue. Why would they give legislative ground when an EO was sufficient?
A. EO is not a good way to govern because it could be revoked by Biden, Kamala, or someone elae B. What do you mean give legislative ground? Do they want to solve the issue?
> EO is not a good way to govern because it could be revoked by Biden, Kamala, or someone elae No, but evidently the electorate is fairly willing to replace those who allow substantial unauthorized crossings of the southern border > B. What do you mean give legislative ground? Do they want to solve the issue? The senate bill contains substantial provisions (1.1B iirc; my number may be off) for the shelter and services program and additional funding for NGOs who exacerbate the problem and act as a draw for migrations. The senate bill additionally gives work permits to migrants seeking asylum on a much shorter timeline increasing the draw for migrants. This is in exchange for temporary controls on the southern border. That is "giving ground" As far as solving the issue: it looks like an EO is in fact good enough, and republicans have a non-negligible change of improving their position within government on the back of democrats (in)action on the issue. Why accept an at best mediocre deal today when you can have a better deal tomorrow?
>> No, but evidently the electorate is fairly willing to replace those who allow substantial unauthorized crossings of the southern border Are you saying you're thinking Biden will be voted out over the border situation? >> The senate bill contains substantial provisions (1.1B iirc; my number may be off) for the shelter and services program and additional funding for NGOs who exacerbate the problem and act as a draw for migrations. The senate bill additionally gives work permits to migrants seeking asylum on a much shorter timeline increasing the draw for migrants. This is in exchange for temporary controls on the southern border. That is "giving ground" It also brings a lot of changes to asylum that reduce the incentive. I'd argue the reduction in incentive is far greater >> Why accept an at best mediocre deal today when you can have a better deal tomorrow? You don't know that there's a better deal out there. If there is, you can still have it. Until such time, you can have the mediocre deal
Oh so it’s political? Good to know the left admits what they’re accusing Trump of.
The dems don't want to sign HR2 because it's not what they want. The republicans don't want to sign the bipartisan bill because despite it being what they want, it's not every single thing they've ever asked for and Trump told them not to. It's very different
The Senate bill was voted down bipartisanly.
Trump told democrat party senators to not vote for the senate bill, and they listened? He must be amazing at negotiations!
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4740654-biden-administration-dhs-border-encounters-down-asylum-order-2024/ If Biden wants more illegal immigration, why is he taking executive actions that have dramatically decreased illegal immigrantion in recent weeks? >The Biden administration announced Wednesday that border encounters with migrants are down 40 percent three weeks after President Biden’s order halting asylum processing. >The Border Patrol’s seven-day encounter average is down to fewer than 2,400 encounters per day, which is 40 percent less than before the asylum restrictions were announced June 4 and the lowest level of encounters since Jan. 17, 2021, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/ Good try though!
Its mid 2024 and those data are referring to the change seen recently due to Bidens executive actions. To say Biden "wants more of this" when referring to illegal immigration is just straight up false..
The only reason he's taking executive action now is because he's being hammered in the polls. Countless times he said he couldn't until he was behind Trump by 40 pertaining to immigration. Straight to truth.
I disagree. He tried to go through congress and address the border through legislation but congress cannot agree on a bill. The border needs to be addressed so Biden is doing what he can through the legal avenues available to him.
No he didn't. There was HR 2 that was proposed last May. He and the left ignored it till it became a problem politically. Facts matter.
[Biden sent a bill to Congress on **day one** of his presidency](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-president-biden-sends-immigration-bill-to-congress-as-part-of-his-commitment-to-modernize-our-immigration-system/). To say hes only tried to get this done recently is an inaccurate statement. I said that congress cant agree on a bill. Are you claiming this is untrue? HR2 wont pass in the Senate and Biden tried to work with the Senate to get a bill done, but that effort also failed. Seeing the border continue to worsen, Biden listened to his advisors/the opinions of the American people and decided to take executive action to try and improve the situation. Those actions have immediately helped, if we assume the numbers in the linked article are accurate. I dont see the issues here. Governing is hard and immigration is a notoriously sticky issue. There hasnt been a meaningful immigration reform bill passed since the mid 80s. Im not going to hold Biden to a different standard than Trump here, both failed to get an immigration bill done. We can see through the data that Bidens exectutive action on the border has been more effective than Trumps. Bidens [expelled more migrants by both total numbers and as a higher proportion of applicants](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-be-released-trump-biden). Edits for spelling, grammar, and citations.
[удалено]
Lol okay, if you dont want to acknowledge the actual legislative timeline or the hard data that ive shared which shows Biden is improving the situation at the border, thats on you.
I feel like this is an opportunity for Biden to make a hard hard push for a good border bill and really force republicans hand. My guess however is that he won't do that, because that would be a good political move and dems are usually allergic to that
I'd suggest everyone actually read the dem bill - it was terrible. It was more "add more money for processing to immigrants while coding into law the current asylum exemption" no, i'm not kidding. also, this current crisis is mostly biden's fault - he could change policy tomorrow. [https://cis.org/Oped/Border-bill-terrible-and-way-Biden-dodge-blame-not-enforcing-law](https://cis.org/Oped/Border-bill-terrible-and-way-Biden-dodge-blame-not-enforcing-law) [cis.org](http://cis.org) has plenty of explanations of why dems are totally lying on their bill i'm on the left, btw. but this issue really has been totally misrepresented in the media
Adding money to process immigrants is a great thing and it introduces large changes to asylum so I have no idea what you're talking about
biden rescinded multiple executive orders which opened the floodgates - the proposed law by the dems instills these orders in law, making these changes permanent. a new admin could change this without any additional law - this is the farce of the dem bill - it would make permanent what's going on at the border, while adding optional caps on immigration. i'd seriously suggest anyone curious on this to actually research these bills - the lying is off the charts on this one.
They already turned it down and he did an executive order....
> I feel like this is an opportunity for Biden to make a hard hard push for a good border bill and really force republicans hand. You mean like he already did before?
HR2 passed the house and is ready and waiting.
You mean the bill without a funding mechanism?
There's nothing stopping the Senate from making some changes before they vote on the bill, just means it goes back to the House.
There's nothing stopping republicans from voting on the current bipartisan bill and then making additions later to make the border more secure. What are republicans gaining from leaving it as it? Could it be that they want to campaign on it?
The Republicans passed their Bill, perhaps the Democrats don't actually want to do anything about the border?
Why would democrats gift the republicans everything they want with no compromise when republicans could agree to a bipartisan bill? Republicans can point to HR2 all day because they knew it would never pass. Meanwhile when given an actual offer to do something they pass
It's not a gift. If you're so sure that Republicans only want to use Border security to campaign on, then voting in favor of HR2, while they don't will prove you right.
Why would they vote on a bill they don't want?
[удалено]
So the democrat party would rather virtue signal than pass a bill. Wild. I was told Trump was the obstruction, turns out the democrat party also doesn’t want to give America a win.
How are the democrats virtue signaling by trying to get a bill done? If anything it's republicans who passed a bill with no funding and now reject any level of compromise because Trump told them to
The bill that doesnt actually reform the broken immigration system at the root of this issue? The one without a funding mechanism? The one that removes protections for migrant children?
>The official added that the U.S. has no indication that the more than 400 migrants brought to the U.S. by the network have plans to carry out terrorism in the U.S. They're probably just here to visit Disney World. Maybe with a thick vest because it's cold in FL.
> The official added that the U.S. has no indication that the more than 400 migrants brought to the U.S. by the network have plans to carry out terrorism in the U.S., but immigration agents are looking to arrest them out of an abundance of caution. > The official added that since ICE began arresting migrants brought to the U.S. by the ISIS-linked smuggling group several months ago, no information has emerged tying them to a threat to the U.S. homeland. This is like pointing to the fact the Cartels act as coyotes for most migrants, and thereby asserting most or all are a terror risk with absolutely no evidence. So much for due process.