All Things Russia & Ukraine

[a fan]

No I haven't The best chance we had was in 2013 -- when Boehner & conservative (R)'s in the House would not take up the comp reform bill passed by the Senate, insisting that it be voted on in a piecemeal fashion, which the Senate would not do. That was the closest we've come. You have selective amnesia about our discussions here & on LP before.

That was 9 years ago! Selective memory? Can't cut me slack for not remembering a 9 year old post straight out of the box?

But yes, yes....you're right. I'm wrong here....you absolutely complained about Boehner and the R's and not picking up the immigration torch.

My apologies.



But as for the "best chance" That was Trump's first two years, OS. He CAMPAIGNED on it. It was his big thing, for heaven's sake.

And then he got in, and didn't even try to do anything about it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The asylum loophole could be easily closed by a single, simple act of Congress.

Ah, so you DO get it.

Thank you.

So easily and yet it’s not closed. Huh, I wonder why?

So until Congress acts, reverse everything previously done to address the problem & deter exploitation of the asylum process, which consumes DHS resources needed to enforce immigration laws & maintain border security.

Isn’t DHS a government agency? Who deh work for?

[old salt]

No I haven't The best chance we had was in 2013 -- when Boehner & conservative (R)'s in the House would not take up the comp reform bill passed by the Senate, insisting that it be voted on in a piecemeal fashion, which the Senate would not do. That was the closest we've come. You have selective amnesia about our discussions here & on LP before.

Utter buffalo bagels.......Trump passed his corporate tax cuts with no trouble at all, using nothing but R's.

And you're here with a straight face, telling us that gee whiz, they just couldn't shut the asylum loophole.

Sell it somewhere else.

Trump was not in office in 2013 which was the last time it was possible to get a comp immigration bill through the Senate.
It's never been possible in the House in recent history.
That's why I've given up on comp reform. Gotta do it piecemeal, horse trading.
- For starters -- swap closing asylum loopholes + completing small part of wall already funded, in return for passing DACA.
- then tackle expanding worker visas to meet labor demand in return for phasing in E-verify
- then more green cards for better border security
- then on & on.

[old salt]

But as for the "best chance" That was Trump's first two years, OS. He CAMPAIGNED on it. It was his big thing, for heaven's sake.

And then he got in, and didn't even try to do anything about it.

Trump was trying. He was ready to deal. Then his "sh!thole country" remark in a closed meeting so offended Shumer & Durbin that they used it as a chance to blow up the bipartisan Senate move to bring back the Gang of 8's 2013 Senate compromise.

I'm outta here. Wasting good dog park time rehashing old discussions.

[Typical Lax Dad]

But as for the "best chance" That was Trump's first two years, OS. He CAMPAIGNED on it. It was his big thing, for heaven's sake.

And then he got in, and didn't even try to do anything about it.

Trump was trying. He was ready to deal. Then his "sh!thole country" remark in a closed meeting so offended Shumer & Durbin that they used it as a chance to blow up the bipartisan Senate move to bring back the Gang of 8's 2013 Senate compromise.

I'm outta here. Wasting good dog park time rehashing old discussions.

Trump was going to fix it….those sh!thole country folk aren’t being caught and released….

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna836946. Those people can’t swim here.

[a fan]

But as for the "best chance" That was Trump's first two years, OS. He CAMPAIGNED on it. It was his big thing, for heaven's sake.

And then he got in, and didn't even try to do anything about it.

Trump was trying. He was ready to deal. Then his "sh!thole country" remark in a closed meeting so offended Shumer & Durbin that they used it as a chance to blow up the bipartisan Senate move to bring back the Gang of 8's 2013 Senate compromise.

And that excuses Trump an McConnell from closing the asylum loophole, or crafting their own immigration bills.....how?

(it doesn't)

[old salt]

But as for the "best chance" That was Trump's first two years, OS. He CAMPAIGNED on it. It was his big thing, for heaven's sake.

And then he got in, and didn't even try to do anything about it.

Trump was trying. He was ready to deal. Then his "sh!thole country" remark in a closed meeting so offended Shumer & Durbin that they used it as a chance to blow up the bipartisan Senate move to bring back the Gang of 8's 2013 Senate compromise.

And that excuses Trump an McConnell from closing the asylum loophole, or crafting their own immigration bills.....how?

(it doesn't)

As we've agreed upon -- no one could not get buy-in from Boehner & House (R)'s.

For root causes, here's a little history on what started our current SW border crisis using the asylum loopholes. Excerpts from NPR reporting :

Triggering event :
DACA was reasonable, well intentioned & widely supported, but along with Obama's other announced EA's, when viewed by potential migrants, it was the green light to come & bring your family & kids.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... immigrants

Obama Goes It Alone, Shielding Up To 5 Million Immigrants From Deportation
November 20, 2014

After six years of often bitter back-and-forth with congressional Republicans over the issue of immigration, President Obama announced he has decided to go it alone by temporarily shielding up to 5 million immigrants from being deported.

In a prime-time speech to the country on Thursday, Obama said he would defer the deportation of the parents of children who are either U.S. citizens or legal residents, and that he also would expand that protection to more "DREAMers," or children who entered the country illegally with their parents. Those two groups also will be allowed to work in the United States legally, after passing a background check and paying a fee.

In Short...
Obama's executive action:

— Delays the deportation of the undocumented parents of children who are citizens or legal residents.

— It also protects any children who were brought to this country illegally before January 1, 2010.

— It directs immigration officials to concentrate on deporting criminals and those who pose a threat to national security.

Obama said the executive action did not amount to amnesty, because it does not provide for a path to legalization.

Hitting back against Republican critics, he also defended the legality of his actions, saying every president in the past 50 years has taken similar steps.

"To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill," Obama said. "I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary."

Even before Obama delivered his speech, congressional Republicans warned that this action would kill any chance of passing comprehensive immigration legislation. Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn took it a step further, warning of a political and social firestorm.

"The country's going to go nuts, because they're going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it's going to be a very serious situation," Coburn said in an interview with USA Today. "You're going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. ... You could see violence."

After asking Congress not to shut down the government over this, Obama turns to the American public and asks them to remember that this is about a greater debate.He said:
"It's about who we are as a country, and who we want to be for future generations.
"Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future?
"Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents' arms? Or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?
"Are we a nation that educates the world's best and brightest in our universities, only to send them home to create businesses in countries that compete against us? Or are we a nation that encourages them to stay and create jobs, businesses, and industries right here in America?
"That's what this debate is all about. We need more than politics as usual when it comes to immigration; we need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears."

"This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently," Obama says. "It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive — only Congress can do that. All we're saying is we're not going to deport you."

Obama says he will direct law enforcement to focus their deportation efforts on criminals.
"That's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security," Obama said. "Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who's working hard to provide for her kids. We'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day."

Obama says that this problem is best solved through legislation, but the House has refused to act.

"Until that happens, there are actions I have the legal authority to take as president — the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me — that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just," Obama said.

"When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half. Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it's been in nearly two years. Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts."

President Obama begins by telling the American people that the country's immigration system is broken.
"It's been this way for decades," Obama said. " And for decades, we haven't done much about it."

...here's the fine print, according to the White House:
-- The parents of lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens will be able to apply for temporary relief from deportation and a work permit if they have lived in the country for more than five years.
-- Obama will expand his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to include any children who were brought to this country illegally before Jan. 1, 2010. Before, the president had deferred the deportation of those born after 1981 who had entered the country before June 15, 2007.
— Neither of those two groups will be given a green card. Both of them will be able to get a Social Security card, but they will not be eligible for Social Security benefits.
— About 4 out of the 5 million estimated to qualify for deferred action will be parents of American children.

— On the enforcement front: The administration will now concentrate on deporting criminals and those who pose a threat to national security. This means an unknown number of immigrants may continue to live in the United States illegally but without the threat of deportation.

— It's important to note this is an executive action not an executive order, which is legally binding.
One piece that is certainly worth a read is one published by The New York Times that outlines Obama's turnaround on the issue of executive action.
In many public appearances, Obama said he did not have the legal authority to act unilaterally on the issue of immigration.
"If we start broadening that," Obama said, referring to an earlier executive action that deferred the deportation of young immigrants, "then essentially I'll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option."

The action that Obama will announce today very clearly expands on his earlier directive to suspend the deportation of DREAMERs, children who entered the country illegally with the parents.

In a briefing with reporters Thursday afternoon, a senior White House official explained the legal reasoning behind the two big actions.
First, the senior administration official said, the executive branch is given "prosecutorial discretion" by the Constitution. That means the Department of Homeland Security can set enforcement priorities and can decide whom to deport.

Second, they say that providing relief to young undocumented immigrants and to the parents of U.S. citizen children is justified on humanitarian grounds.
The official said the action is predicated on a desire not to separate parents from kids who are lawful, and on an understanding that that's a relationship Congress wants to respect.

Immigration officials will prioritize the deportation of criminals and new arrivals, which means that some of the immigrants who don't qualify for relief and have been in the United States for a while may never be deported.

The Result
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/68362355 ... ern-border

President Obama Also Faced A 'Crisis' At The Southern Border
January 9, 2019

In a nationally televised address from the White House, the president warned about an "actual humanitarian crisis on the border" prompted by a surge of migrants from Central America, and urged Congress to take action on his immigration agenda.

The year was 2014, and the president was Barack Obama.
...the situations at the border and in the White House — then and now — are strikingly similar, and immigration experts say the Trump administration can learn from Obama's tenure. Though the lessons depend on your perspective.

Immigrants' rights advocates say Trump should emphasize efforts to provide humanitarian aid to migrants arriving at the southern border, while immigration hardliners say Trump should be careful not to create a system that acts like a magnet for Central American migrants.

Like the current White House, the Obama administration struggled to find the right response to a dramatic increase in the number of migrants fleeing violence and poverty in Central America.

More than 60,000 unaccompanied children arrived at the southern border in 2014, most from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, putting the Obama administration in a difficult position.

More than 25,000 members of family units were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border in November, the highest monthly total since at least 2012. Officials with Customs and Border Protection say the agency isn't equipped to handle such large numbers of women and children.

Every day, CBP officials say, they're transporting dozens of sick children to hospitals for examination and treatment. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen promised improved medical care after two young migrant children died while in CBP custody — the first time that had happened in 10 years, Nielsen said.

"The fact is the women and children at the border are not a security threat," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her televised response to the president's speech Tuesday night.
"They are a humanitarian challenge — a challenge that President Trump's own cruel and counterproductive policies have only deepened," Pelosi said.

When the surge of migrant children began arriving in 2014, the Obama administration tried some of the same tactics as the Trump administration.

The Obama administration housed migrant children in temporary camps on military bases. And it pushed for long-term detention of migrant families while their asylum cases played out in immigration court, though federal courts blocked that policy.

But then, those tactics shifted. Under Obama, the federal government eventually spent billions of dollars in response to the migrant surge. For instance,the administration greatly expanded the network of shelters contracted by the Department of Health and Human Services that house unaccompanied children. These shelters house the children until they can be placed with a parent or other relative already living in the U.S.

While the Obama administration would sometimes separate migrant families in detention, especially in cases in which the parent was deemed unsuitable, Brané pointed out the the Trump administration regularly separated families before abandoning the policy last year. Under Trump, nearly 3,000 children were separated from their parents under a "zero tolerance" policy against illegal border crossings.

And under Trump, the network of shelters for unaccompanied children nearly reached capacity of 15,000 before the administration relaxed new rules for vetting the adult sponsors, making it easier for children to be released to live with their family members while they await their day in immigration court.

Immigration hardliners argue that the Obama administration was too lenient with migrant families and children, by releasing them from detention and allowing them to live in the United States while their immigration cases were pending.

However well-intended those policies might have been, immigration hawks say they acted as an invitation to more migrants from Central America to make the same trip to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump has asked Congress for $5.7 billion to build barriers along the Mexican border in addition to more agents, immigration judges, detention space, humanitarian assistance and medical support. Trump also asked Congress to close "border security loopholes" in the law.

Back in 2014, Obama used his bully pulpit to urge a divided Congress to advance an immigration overhaul bill — and threatened to change immigration policy through executive action if it didn't.

"The failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security, it's bad for our economy, and it's bad for our future," Obama said in his Rose Garden remarks.

That approach didn't persuade Congress then, and efforts to pass a broader immigration package died.

[Typical Lax Dad]

TL/DR

[Typical Lax Dad]

[a fan]

As we've agreed upon -- no one could not get buy-in from Boehner & House (R)'s.

We've agree on what has happened. What we don't agree upon is WHY these things happened.

For me, it's clear as day that Republicans don't want to fix any of these problems, because they'd lose what their advisors have told them is a key election issue.

This isn't an election issue for Dem voters, Old Salt. It just isn't.

Yet Republicans run on this stuff....as Trump did, and won the election on promises of fixing the overall problem, turning on EVerify, and sealing the border. He did none of these things.

Why? So he and Republicans could run on it again, naturally. Divide and conquer.

This is where we disagree: you think the Republicans are acting in good faith. You don't think they're lying to you to get your vote.

I disagree. And they've been playing this game for 40 years now.

The Dems aren't much better, in that their donors prefer the status quo....so that's what they do. If donors make a fuss about the border and the asylum loophole? Biden will shut it down. Until then? He serves the 1%ers.

[old salt]

As we've agreed upon -- no one could not get buy-in from Boehner & House (R)'s.

We've agree on what has happened. What we don't agree upon is WHY these things happened.

For me, it's clear as day that Republicans don't want to fix any of these problems, because they'd lose what their advisors have told them is a key election issue.

This isn't an election issue for Dem voters, Old Salt. It just isn't.

Yet Republicans run on this stuff....as Trump did, and won the election on promises of fixing the overall problem, turning on EVerify, and sealing the border. He did none of these things.

Why? So he and Republicans could run on it again, naturally. Divide and conquer.

This is where we disagree: you think the Republicans are acting in good faith. You don't think they're lying to you to get your vote.

I disagree. And they've been playing this game for 40 years now.

The Dems aren't much better, in that their donors prefer the status quo....so that's what they do. If donors make a fuss about the border and the asylum loophole? Biden will shut it down. Until then? He serves the 1%ers.

No, I think neither party is acting in good faith, which is why we haven't fixed this problem.
Both parties want it as an election issue to fire up their base. They are both lying.
It's an election issue for the Dems because they want the migrants to get in, no matter how.
They don't care if the immigration laws are not being enforced.

[MDlaxfan76]

As we've agreed upon -- no one could not get buy-in from Boehner & House (R)'s.

We've agree on what has happened. What we don't agree upon is WHY these things happened.

For me, it's clear as day that Republicans don't want to fix any of these problems, because they'd lose what their advisors have told them is a key election issue.

This isn't an election issue for Dem voters, Old Salt. It just isn't.

Yet Republicans run on this stuff....as Trump did, and won the election on promises of fixing the overall problem, turning on EVerify, and sealing the border. He did none of these things.

Why? So he and Republicans could run on it again, naturally. Divide and conquer.

This is where we disagree: you think the Republicans are acting in good faith. You don't think they're lying to you to get your vote.

I disagree. And they've been playing this game for 40 years now.

The Dems aren't much better, in that their donors prefer the status quo....so that's what they do. If donors make a fuss about the border and the asylum loophole? Biden will shut it down. Until then? He serves the 1%ers.

No, I think neither party is acting in good faith, which is why we haven't fixed this problem.
Both parties want it as an election issue to fire up their base. They are both lying.
It's an election issue for the Dems because they want the migrants to get in, no matter how.
They don't care if the immigration laws are not being enforced.

mmm, how is that an "election issue" for the Dems?...who is going to vote Dem "because they want the migrants to get in, no matter how"??? or "they don't want the immigration laws enforced"? what voters are attracted to that position?

I don't see it.

If you said, "which party wants comprehensive immigration reform, DACA, and path to citizenship" that's the Dems...and sure, that would be attractive to lots of people with family members who that would impact. Same for "which party wants to be humane in the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers" that too would be attractive to many.

I see this a GOP driven problem, which is really too bad as the BUSH led GOP came darn close to getting positive things done (but the fear mongers and racist/nativist wing balked). And the GOP reevaluation was on path towards getting it done...but then in came Trump firing up the angry and fearful, and they took over. Now it's not in the cards at all from the GOP.

[a fan]

No, I think neither party is acting in good faith, which is why we haven't fixed this problem.
Both parties want it as an election issue to fire up their base.

Not true. Obama didn't run on immigration. Neither did Biden.

Their base doesn't care all that much, OS. You need to recognize this to understand what's happening.

They are both lying.

Yes!

It's an election issue for the Dems because they want the migrants to get in, no matter how.

No more or less than the Republicans want the migrants in, OS. And when you and your fellow R voters catch on to this fact, that's when change will occur, because you'll see a Tea Party movement for immigration reform. You'll hold Congressional Republicans responsible for finally fixing immigration, and vote them out of office when you see they're full of sh*t.

The Republicans want that border open, just like the Dems. People kept right on coming under Trump and Bush, OS.

They don't care if the immigration laws are not being enforced.

Neither do Republicans!

The Republicans didn't fix the asylum loophole because they want the migrants in. Status quo serves the Republican donor's interest, Old Salt. And as the labor market tightens, more illegal labor flowing in serves the Republican donor's interest.

This is why a Republican will NEVER flip the EVerify switch on, and prosecute all offenders to the fullest extent of the law. Flip that switch on? The issue of the border crossing all but disappears in a generation. No point in crossing if you can't get work without the manager getting thrown in jail.

[a fan]

mmm, how is that an "election issue" for the Dems?...who is going to vote Dem "because they want the migrants to get in, no matter how"??? or "they don't want the immigration laws enforced"? what voters are attracted to that position?

I don't see it.

That's because those voters don' exist in any meaningful numbers.

It's why D Presidents don't run on immigration. Their base doesn't care all that much.

This is a Republican issue. Full stop.

[old salt]

Sobering...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?521153-1/ ... d-security

[old salt]

mmm, how is that an "election issue" for the Dems?...who is going to vote Dem "because they want the migrants to get in, no matter how"??? or "they don't want the immigration laws enforced"? what voters are attracted to that position?

I don't see it.

That's because those voters don' exist in any meaningful numbers.

It's why D Presidents don't run on immigration. Their base doesn't care all that much.

This is a Republican issue. Full stop.

They don't care because they share Hillay's dream of open borders, which is coming to fruition with a wink & a nod.
Express " a well founded fear of persecution " & get a bus or plane ticket to the US city of your choice.
No deportations, sanctuary cities, no ICE raids, CBP baby sitting abandoned kids & pregnant moms.
The Dems are getting what they want outside of our laws, just like the cartels of smugglers & trafficker.

[a fan]

The Dems are getting what they want outside of our laws, just like the cartels of smugglers & trafficker.

And the Republicans have the same blood on their hands, mon ami.

You still haven't answered: why didn't Trump and McConnell close the loophole?

You're the walking, breathing answer, OS: because no matter what the R's do, you and your fellow voters are gonna blame the Dems for immigration, and vote for more Republicans. That's it. That's why.

When will R voters change this behavior, and start demanding action from the R's that they voted in?

[old salt]

The Dems are getting what they want outside of our laws, just like the cartels of smugglers & trafficker.

And the Republicans have the same blood on their hands, mon ami.

You still haven't answered: why didn't Trump and McConnell close the loophole?
Because the House (R)'s were never behind the bi-partisan Senate compromise which Trump would have signed if Congress passed it.
Schumer & Durbin pulled the (D) support before it got started, blaming Trump's s-hole country remark.
Trump would have signed anything that made it through Congress, declared victory & claimed he fixed the problem.

You're the walking, breathing answer, OS: because no matter what the R's do, you and your fellow voters are gonna blame the Dems for immigration, and vote for more Republicans. That's it. That's why. You keep ignoring what I've been saying about the House (R)'s.

When will R voters change this behavior, and start demanding action from the R's that they voted in?
You think the (R)'s in the House are not responsive to what the voters in their districts want ?
They'll come along when there is something the voters in their district want.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yup, Republicans, whether rank and file, or their representatives, don't want immigration reform.

You've just confirmed it.

And in response, you greatly exaggerate (ala right wing media) the Dems reason to want easier immigration.

[old salt]

Yup, Republicans, whether rank and file, or their representatives, don't want immigration reform.

You've just confirmed it.

And in response, you greatly exaggerate (ala right wing media) the Dems reason to want easier immigration.

Republicans don't want open borders, which is your version of immigration reform.

Republicans want immigration laws that are enforceable that do not facilitate millions of unlawful residents.
That's the Republican version of immigration reform.