Elections Republican house: no border deal till trump or republican president

[kflo]

these conversations are bizarre. fuckin politicians........(and enablers)...............

it's just amazing going to work every day and politicians put party over country. they see that as the goal.

they all work for the same company..........

but don't see it that way. and the nation suffers.

 

[Sinister]

I don’t think I’ll ever understand how or why conservatives normalized shutting down the government.

Republicans have made obstructionism their entire platform. Obstruct, blame Democrats. You're seeing it in this very thread, people who decry the "invasion at the border" and yet applauding rejection of any significant deal because their side didnt do it, and is telling them it SHOULD be rejected. Political Stockholm syndrome.

 

[panamaican]

LOL, no. This is like rewarding a guy who just perpetually robbed you for three years, with a job.

Yes. If you want him to stop robbing people, giving him a job is actually pretty good way to start. It's literally a big part of why governments create job programs...to reduce the incentive to resort to crime for money.

You talk about "politics", but have little to say about the Dems who are all of sudden trying to present themselves as actually giving a shit about the border, and not just fishing for votes. The only reason the Dems want to all of sudden give a shit about this issue, is because it's killing them in the polls. And yet, you only ask Republicans to have some conviction it their stances. Not the "open border"/"we are all one" Dems, though. No, only they get to pivot from their position due to politics...

I'm talking about the thread itself. The thread is about the Republicans not passing a bill because they don't want the Democrats to use it politically. The thread relies on a quote from a member of the GOP. Making this about the Democrats would be ignoring the focus of the thread.

As for conviction in their stances...I ask everyone for conviction in their stances.

1) The Democrat stance has been that they oppose open borders but that they also don't think there is a border crisis. They want to solve the border problem (problem, not crisis, by their interpretation) but don't believe in fences. That's their public position.

2) The GOP public position is that the border is an unmitigated disaster. It needs fences, it needs more funding. And the biggest barrier to that is that Democrats are operating an open border policy to win votes.

Those are the 2 positions. Passing this bill is consistent with the public Democrat position that they want to do something but they don't see the problem as seriously as the GOP. Opposing this bill is not consistent with the public GOP position which is that they want to pass stuff but the Democrats won't let it happen. Why? Because, in this scenario, the Democrats are letting it happen.

If we're not going to be accurate in what the 2 sides are actually saying, it's dumb. I try not to rely on the internet version of what the parties say and look more at what party leadership says. And Democrat party leadership has consistently said they want to do something about the border. They've also said they think the GOP is exaggerating the problem. The internet version is "If Dems don't want what GOP wants then Dems wants open borders...", and I think we all know that's silly.

 

[Sinister]

Yes. If you want him to stop robbing people, giving him a job is actually pretty good way to start. It's literally a big part of why governments create job programs...to reduce the incentive to resort to crime for money.

I'm talking about the thread itself. The thread is about the Republicans not passing a bill because they don't want the Democrats to use it politically. The thread relies on a quote from a member of the GOP. Making this about the Democrats would be ignoring the focus of the thread.

As for conviction in their stances...I ask everyone for conviction in their stances.

1) The Democrat stance has been that they oppose open borders but that they also don't think there is a border crisis. They want to solve the border problem (problem, not crisis, by their interpretation) but don't believe in fences. That's their public position.

2) The GOP public position is that the border is an unmitigated disaster. It needs fences, it needs more funding. And the biggest barrier to that is that Democrats are operating an open border policy to win votes.

Those are the 2 positions. Passing this bill is consistent with the public Democrat position that they want to do something but they don't see the problem as seriously as the GOP. Opposing this bill is not consistent with the public GOP position which is that they want to pass stuff but the Democrats won't let it happen. Why? Because, in this scenario, the Democrats are letting it happen.

If we're not going to be accurate in what the 2 sides are actually saying, it's dumb. I try not to rely on the internet version of what the parties say and look more at what party leadership says. And Democrat party leadership has consistently said they want to do something about the border. They've also said they think the GOP is exaggerating the problem. The internet version is "If Dems don't want what GOP wants then Dems wants open borders...", and I think we all know that's silly.

I wouldnt say the GOP wants more border funding as a general concept. Their voting History suggests otherwise. They have rejected funding that would improve conditions at the border repeatedly.

My suspicion is they look at the border the same way they look at abortion, as a wedge issue. This is why they always find some way to oppose the settlement of the issue, because if you take away their wedge issue they have nothing more to offer. This is why Ohio Republicans are attempting to ignore voters and keep abortion in contestation. The voters settled the issue and they honestly cannot abide by that because without their wedge issue they dont know what to do. Same with this. The border ideas Mexico is proposing are good ideas, what they want is fairly reasonable, and we could have a much better border situation and Republicans KNOW this. So why would they oppose it? Why do they ALWAYS vote against also repairing our immigration process to streamline it and make it less challenging, which drives people to illegal immigration? Because if those issues were actually fixed they lose their wedge issue. That's what's important to them, poking their base into rages. And anyone who applauds that also doesnt actually want illegal immigration minimized the same way they want abortion bans instead of the social policies that actually lower abortions and encourage people to feel comfortable having children.

What they want, is the promise that people they don't like will ve punished.

 

[Mr Holmes]

I don't blame the House for not wanting to pass this. They put forth their own immigration bill and the senate won't even hold a vote on it. And now the Biden administration expects them to just rubber stamp this ridiculous bill that gives a few scraps towards helping America but is mostly a foreign war funding bill.

The White House has requested $13.6 billion in emergency supplemental funding for the southern border as part of a $106 billion request that also includes money for the wars in Israel and Ukraine.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't blame the House for not wanting to pass this. They put forth their own immigration bill and the senate won't even hold a vote on it. And now the Biden administration expects them to just rubber stamp this ridiculous bill that gives a few scraps towards helping America but is mostly a foreign war funding bill.

That's probably a better rhetorical tack for Republicans to take, but this thread is about Republicans agreeing that the bill is good but explicitly saying what everyone already knew--they perceive strengthening the border as bad for them politically and so they don't want to do it. Regular people have also picked up the message. That's true of crime too (that is, Republicans see rising crime as politically beneficial so they generally oppose effective measures to reduce it).

 

[Rod1]

guys i'm starting to think pretending to fix a border you deliberately broke to win points during election season won't look genuine or go over so well

How exactly did Dems broke the border? Im not up to speed on the crazy.

 

[panamaican]

Just because they are claiming asylum doesn't mean they have to be allowed to enter though.

That's true. And Biden recently issued an order saying that. Biden's asylum ban basically said that you can't come in for asylum unless you can prove that you sought out asylum elsewhere and were denied. It's a de facto end to arbitrary asylum seekers but you still have to process the application to deny it.

@Jack V Savage has the right of it. What do you do with the people while you are processing their applications? You're not letting them into the country legally but since the application review process takes a long time, many of them are illegally entering the country to make their claim since it's faster than waiting on the other side.

Unless the system for granting/denying asylum is made faster/smoother, the asylum seeker problem is never going to get better. But these are people seeking legal status through a federally created process...which is why they're so willing to get on buses and be sent to other parts of the country. They think they're going to get their applications processed there. If these were true illegals, who were trying to sneak in and live off the grid, the last thing they would do is get on government buses to unknown parts of the country.

A huge part of the public facing problem is that the issue is constantly being misrepresented and people are worked up but they don't understand what's happening.

 

[Sinister]

How exactly did Dems broke the border? Im not up to speed on the crazy.

That's merely the language of xenophobes/racists who think "the browning of America" is a thing. The kinds of people who get all spooled-up if you suggest making immigration easier so there is better flow in and out because someone convinced them in their youth that immigrants just want to come here, take all their stuff, and never leave. Lol

 

[Mr Holmes]

@Jack V Savage has the right of it. What do you do with the people while you are processing their applications? You're not letting them into the country legally but since the application review process takes a long time, many of them are illegally entering the country to make their claim since it's faster than waiting on the other side.

You're describing "catch and release". Biden reinstated this policy back when he took over. People coming over the border illegally can be prosecuted for the illegal entry and deported while their asylum claim is being reviewed. There's no requirement for us to allow them to live here while they wait for their day in court.

 

[panamaican]

You're describing "catch and release". Biden reinstated this policy back when he took over. People coming over the border illegally can be prosecuted for the illegal entry and deported while their asylum claim is being reviewed. There's no requirement for us to allow them to live here while they wait for their day in court.

But you still have to prosecute them for the illegal entry. Even the fastest way of doing this "stipulated removal" requires you to first detain them, inform them of the process and then have them sign the removal document. Otherwise, they get a hearing in front of a judge.

As I'm sure you can understand, there are nowhere near enough judges to get through that process quickly.

And you have to house the detained somewhere while you wait for their hearing or wait for them to sign the expedited stipulated removal order.

These are details for the process that a lot of people don't understand. They think we can just put people back on the other side of the border without understanding that even deportation requires a lengthy legal process. Asylum is a lengthy application process, deportation is a lengthy process. Without streamlining the process, things are just going to keep backing up.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's true. And Biden recently issued an order saying that. Biden's asylum ban basically said that you can't come in for asylum unless you can prove that you sought out asylum elsewhere and were denied. It's a de facto end to arbitrary asylum seekers but you still have to process the application to deny it.

@Jack V Savage has the right of it. What do you do with the people while you are processing their applications? You're not letting them into the country legally but since the application review process takes a long time, many of them are illegally entering the country to make their claim since it's faster than waiting on the other side.

Unless the system for granting/denying asylum is made faster/smoother, the asylum seeker problem is never going to get better. But these are people seeking legal status through a federally created process...which is why they're so willing to get on buses and be sent to other parts of the country. They think they're going to get their applications processed there. If these were true illegals, who were trying to sneak in and live off the grid, the last thing they would do is get on government buses to unknown parts of the country.

A huge part of the public facing problem is that the issue is constantly being misrepresented and people are worked up but they don't understand what's happening.

I think a big part of the issue with being honest about it is that treating asylum seekers humanely incentivizes more coming, and treating them cruelly is unacceptable to most people. No one wants to own either side of that (generally there's a big issue with people in politics admitting tradeoffs to their preferences) so the "solution" from politicians and politically aligned media is to ignore it when they're in power and talk about it constantly when the other guys are in power.

 

[Sinister]

I think a big part of the issue with being honest about it is that treating asylum seekers humanely incentivizes more coming, and treating them cruelly is unacceptable to most people. No one wants to own either side of that (generally there's a big issue with people in politics admitting tradeoffs to their preferences) so the "solution" from politicians and politically aligned media is to ignore it when they're in power and talk about it constantly when the other guys are in power.

Well, not owning the treatment of asylum-seekers is a direct effect of ignoring that our policies are what destroyed their Countries in the first place. Owning that requires a re-evaluation of American exceptionalism at a time when a good percent of our population scoffs at the idea of having concern for the good functioning of anywhere outside of our borders

Except for the large numbers of Americans living lavishly in Mexico, Central, and South America and those that plan on doing do. You know, the ones who call themselves "ex-pats" because they dont like the term "immigrants."

 

[Mr Holmes]

But you still have to prosecute them for the illegal entry. Even the fastest way of doing this "stipulated removal" requires you to first detain them, inform them of the process and then have them sign the removal document. Otherwise, they get a hearing in front of a judge.

As I'm sure you can understand, there are nowhere near enough judges to get through that process quickly.

And you have to house the detained somewhere while you wait for their hearing or wait for them to sign the expedited stipulated removal order.

These are details for the process that a lot of people don't understand. They think we can just put people back on the other side of the border without understanding that even deportation requires a lengthy legal process. Asylum is a lengthy application process, deportation is a lengthy process. Without streamlining the process, things are just going to keep backing up.

Its almost as if we need a wall to prevent the illegal entry in the 1st place. Then they would all need to go to one of the ports of entry to start their asylum process.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well, not owning the treatment of asylum-seekers is a direct effect of ignoring that our policies are what destroyed their Countries in the first place. Owning that requires a re-evaluation of American exceptionalism at a time when a good percent of our population scoffs at the idea of having concern for the good functioning of anywhere outside of our borders

Except for the large numbers of Americans living lavishly in Mexico, Central, and South America and those that plan on doing do. You know, the ones who call themselves "ex-pats" because they dont like the term "immigrants."

What I mean is that people don't want to admit that they want to be kind of cruel to asylum seekers to discourage more of them or that if we treat them legally and humanely, we'll get more. But, yeah, part of Biden's approach (this, rather than "border security," is what has been delegated to Harris) is to try to address issues at the root cause, through a mix of diplomacy (encouraging better policies in the Northern Triangle) and gathering/encouraging investment. There has been some success there, but there's going to be a long lag between that kind of approach and results in America.

 

[Sinister]

Its almost as if we need a wall to prevent the illegal entry in the 1st place. Then they would all need to go to one of the ports of entry to start their asylum process.

That has never been a provision of US law, that asylum-seekers must not be in the Country. In the entire History of our compliance with international law on asylum, already being in the US when claiming asylum had always been a key means of doing so as its one of 3 conditions of asylum eligibility. You are just suggesting removing one of the conditions entirely. Because you dislike it

 

[panamaican]

Its almost as if we need a wall to prevent the illegal entry in the 1st place. Then they would all need to go to one of the ports of entry to start their asylum process.

Or they would continue to circumvent the ports of entry. This is where the debate turns absurd. We know that processing the asylum seekers and the illegal entrants both require a faster smoother process. Improving that process requires a huge overhaul of the system.

But the fixation on border entries unfortunately means ignoring a decent chunk of relevant information.

While the GOP has everyone paying attention to illegal border entries, they're not paying attention to the reality that almost 2/3rds the illegal immigrant problem comes from legal entry. And fences don't fix that. Better enforcement and speed of processing does. That data is a few years old but I picked it because it neatly illustrates the problem with focusing on the wrong element of a problem.

Now, that's not to say that the border issue isn't important because it is. But it is the lesser of the 2 problems.

 

[BFoe]

Republicans have made obstructionism their entire platform. Obstruct, blame Democrats. You're seeing it in this very thread, people who decry the "invasion at the border" and yet applauding rejection of any significant deal because their side didnt do it, and is telling them it SHOULD be rejected. Political Stockholm syndrome.

Yup. Recently Bill Clinton ruffled their feathers when he said,
“The Republicans are pretty simple actually, and pretty straightforward. They say, ‘I want you to be very miserable, and I want you to be very angry. And I want you to vote for us, and we’ll make it worse, but we’ll blame them.”

He was 100% right though, and this is a perfect example of it.

 

[AWilder]

this is what happens when you have a political party with zero policy, zero leadership, zero values. Party of zeros.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Or they would continue to circumvent the ports of entry. This is where the debate turns absurd. We know that processing the asylum seekers and the illegal entrants both require a faster smoother process. Improving that process requires a huge overhaul of the system.

But the fixation on border entries unfortunately means ignoring a decent chunk of relevant information.

While the GOP has everyone paying attention to illegal border entries, they're not paying attention to the reality that almost 2/3rds the illegal immigrant problem comes from legal entry. And fences don't fix that. Better enforcement and speed of processing does. That data is a few years old but I picked it because it neatly illustrates the problem with focusing on the wrong element of a problem.

Now, that's not to say that the border issue isn't important because it is. But it is the lesser of the 2 problems.

Your chart is from 2016 though. If I understand it correctly, it says there were 320k overstays for the whole year. We had over 300,000 encounters with illegals just last month alone. How can you argue it is the lesser of the 2 problems?