~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... -rcna64311

President Joe Biden said Wednesday that he intends to visit the U.S.-Mexico border for the first time since taking office, after nearly two years of Republicans criticizing his administration over the migrant crisis.

Biden revealed the potential trip while speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One in Kentucky. Asked if he'll be going to the border, Biden said, "That’s my intention, we’re working out the details now."

The president is scheduled to attend the North American Leaders' Summit in Mexico City on Monday and Tuesday.

Republicans have repeatedly ridiculed Biden for not visiting the southern border while also saying the issue of migrants is not a priority for his presidency.

The Biden administration suffered a legal setback on implementing its immigration policies when the Supreme Court decided last month that Title 42 — a Trump-era immigration policy that lets authorities quickly expel asylum-seekers at the border — will remain in effect for now. The administration had sought to end that policy.

A trip to the border would come as House Republicans are poised to ramp up oversight of the Biden administration, with a particular focus on the border.

Are you applauding the decision to go to the border?
Or is it just political posturing, just as the ridicule for not doing a photo op there was merely political posturing?

Does the GOP MAGA crew actually have a workable, comprehensive answer to the challenge?
Are they willing to fund a comprehensive answer?

Or do they just want to throw rocks?

Personally, I think it's great that the Biden Admin is going to move this issue up on the list of priorities to address. I understand why it was low on the list, given so many other huge priorities these past two years, but they accomplished many of those, so maybe the timing works now.

Maybe, just maybe, there's realization that we need more workers and thus immigration can be cast not under "replacement" politics but rather on a frame of economic growth, with legalization of workers, getting them on the tax rolls, and with hope for citizenship and the American Dream all part of the "fix". And couple that with much more focus on the most dangerous illegal threats, like fentanyl, and other criminal threats. But make it much easier for people in dire need to achieve a better, safer, more prosperous life to find that here.

Can they get a 'partner' on the other side of the aisle willing to work to real solutions in good faith?
(Perhaps that was what all the show of bi-partisanship was about yesterday, signaling that common sense people can work together across party lines to actually accomplish things.)

I don't know what they can actually get passed legislatively, and certainly the answer isn't without major costs and compromises, but it's gonna get attention regardless of whether they'd prefer to focus elsewhere.

At a minimum I think we may see some real proposals made...which will demand attention from the pols...and let the American voters see who is being recalcitrant and who is actually working to solve the problem.

But the House is gonna be a sh-tshow, so low expectations for results in these 2 years.

[get it to x]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... -rcna64311

President Joe Biden said Wednesday that he intends to visit the U.S.-Mexico border for the first time since taking office, after nearly two years of Republicans criticizing his administration over the migrant crisis.

Biden revealed the potential trip while speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One in Kentucky. Asked if he'll be going to the border, Biden said, "That’s my intention, we’re working out the details now."

The president is scheduled to attend the North American Leaders' Summit in Mexico City on Monday and Tuesday.

Republicans have repeatedly ridiculed Biden for not visiting the southern border while also saying the issue of migrants is not a priority for his presidency.

The Biden administration suffered a legal setback on implementing its immigration policies when the Supreme Court decided last month that Title 42 — a Trump-era immigration policy that lets authorities quickly expel asylum-seekers at the border — will remain in effect for now. The administration had sought to end that policy.

A trip to the border would come as House Republicans are poised to ramp up oversight of the Biden administration, with a particular focus on the border.

Are you applauding the decision to go to the border?
Or is it just political posturing, just as the ridicule for not doing a photo op there was merely political posturing?

Does the GOP MAGA crew actually have a workable, comprehensive answer to the challenge?
Are they willing to fund a comprehensive answer?

Or do they just want to throw rocks?

Personally, I think it's great that the Biden Admin is going to move this issue up on the list of priorities to address. I understand why it was low on the list, given so many other huge priorities these past two years, but they accomplished many of those, so maybe the timing works now.

Maybe, just maybe, there's realization that we need more workers and thus immigration can be cast not under "replacement" politics but rather on a frame of economic growth, with legalization of workers, getting them on the tax rolls, and with hope for citizenship and the American Dream all part of the "fix". And couple that with much more focus on the most dangerous illegal threats, like fentanyl, and other criminal threats. But make it much easier for people in dire need to achieve a better, safer, more prosperous life to find that here.

Can they get a 'partner' on the other side of the aisle willing to work to real solutions in good faith?
(Perhaps that was what all the show of bi-partisanship was about yesterday, signaling that common sense people can work together across party lines to actually accomplish things.)

I don't know what they can actually get passed legislatively, and certainly the answer isn't without major costs and compromises, but it's gonna get attention regardless of whether they'd prefer to focus elsewhere.

At a minimum I think we may see some real proposals made...which will demand attention from the pols...and let the American voters see who is being recalcitrant and who is actually working to solve the problem.

But the House is gonna be a sh-tshow, so low expectations for results in these 2 years.

You wasted a lot of time and keystrokes. This issue will never be solved as long a both sides like it as a campaign issue.

[dislaxxic]

How does the left "like this as a campaign issue"??

..

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... -rcna64311

President Joe Biden said Wednesday that he intends to visit the U.S.-Mexico border for the first time since taking office, after nearly two years of Republicans criticizing his administration over the migrant crisis.

Biden revealed the potential trip while speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One in Kentucky. Asked if he'll be going to the border, Biden said, "That’s my intention, we’re working out the details now."

The president is scheduled to attend the North American Leaders' Summit in Mexico City on Monday and Tuesday.

Republicans have repeatedly ridiculed Biden for not visiting the southern border while also saying the issue of migrants is not a priority for his presidency.

The Biden administration suffered a legal setback on implementing its immigration policies when the Supreme Court decided last month that Title 42 — a Trump-era immigration policy that lets authorities quickly expel asylum-seekers at the border — will remain in effect for now. The administration had sought to end that policy.

A trip to the border would come as House Republicans are poised to ramp up oversight of the Biden administration, with a particular focus on the border.

Are you applauding the decision to go to the border?
Or is it just political posturing, just as the ridicule for not doing a photo op there was merely political posturing?

Does the GOP MAGA crew actually have a workable, comprehensive answer to the challenge?
Are they willing to fund a comprehensive answer?

Or do they just want to throw rocks?

Personally, I think it's great that the Biden Admin is going to move this issue up on the list of priorities to address. I understand why it was low on the list, given so many other huge priorities these past two years, but they accomplished many of those, so maybe the timing works now.

Maybe, just maybe, there's realization that we need more workers and thus immigration can be cast not under "replacement" politics but rather on a frame of economic growth, with legalization of workers, getting them on the tax rolls, and with hope for citizenship and the American Dream all part of the "fix". And couple that with much more focus on the most dangerous illegal threats, like fentanyl, and other criminal threats. But make it much easier for people in dire need to achieve a better, safer, more prosperous life to find that here.

Can they get a 'partner' on the other side of the aisle willing to work to real solutions in good faith?
(Perhaps that was what all the show of bi-partisanship was about yesterday, signaling that common sense people can work together across party lines to actually accomplish things.)

I don't know what they can actually get passed legislatively, and certainly the answer isn't without major costs and compromises, but it's gonna get attention regardless of whether they'd prefer to focus elsewhere.

At a minimum I think we may see some real proposals made...which will demand attention from the pols...and let the American voters see who is being recalcitrant and who is actually working to solve the problem.

But the House is gonna be a sh-tshow, so low expectations for results in these 2 years.

You wasted a lot of time and keystrokes. This issue will never be solved as long a both sides like it as a campaign issue.

We agree that's been the problem to date.

But Biden's major pitch has been about competent governance, actually solving problems, preferably with bipartisan support. And the major political foil is very likely going to be the sh-tshow of the GOP extremists in the House. The House Dems are positioning to be the opposite of that sh-tshow. There's a good chunk of the GOP leadership, mostly in the Senate, but some as well in the House, who realize that Biden's going to win that pitch if the GOP continues to lurch toward the extremist right.

It may well be a political "win" to be putting forward comprehensive solutions, negotiated among people of good faith. A win for Biden and a win for the GOP moderate conservatives who may, quite rightly, fear the long term damage if the GOP lurches rightward and is branded as the party unwilling to govern and solve problems.

The alternative they're looking at is a clean, and perhaps overwhelming, sweep in 2024 for the Dems and then the loss of the ability to as significantly influence the 'solutions' as they have now.

Better to stiff-arm the extremists and begin to rebuild credibility.
McConnell seems to "get" that.

[MDlaxfan76]

How does the left "like this as a campaign issue"??

..

The opportunity to paint R's as racist, nativist meanies.

But I think when you're the party in power that's a tougher play, given that the issues are real.

[MDlaxfan76]

But here remains the problem, politically for Biden and the Dems.

The issues are complex, the solutions are complex, and it's very difficult to get a clear read on what public opinion actually would be in response to any given set of 'solutions', especially when real success is with a comprehensive, interdependent set of solutions.

Much easier to pick out issues in which there's 60+% popular support, and more narrowly but hugely importantly, 55+% support in swing states.

Put them at the top of the list to use political capital on.

So...if we see Biden put real political capital behind comprehensive immigration reform, we should applaud the heck out of it as it's darn hard...

[a fan]

How does the left "like this as a campaign issue"??

..

The opportunity to paint R's as racist, nativist meanies.

But I think when you're the party in power that's a tougher play, given that the issues are real.

Apparently it's not a tougher play.

You see any proposed Immigration Reform bills coming from the Dems?

Me, neither.

Status quo. Same thing the R's want.

[a fan]

You wasted a lot of time and keystrokes. This issue will never be solved as long a both sides like it as a campaign issue.

Yup.

[a fan]

How does the left "like this as a campaign issue"??

You, of all people, know that "the left" has no power in Congress, Dis.

He meant "the Dems" when he said "both sides".

[MDlaxfan76]

How does the left "like this as a campaign issue"??

..

The opportunity to paint R's as racist, nativist meanies.

But I think when you're the party in power that's a tougher play, given that the issues are real.

Apparently no.

You see any proposed Immigration Reform bills coming from the Dems?

Me, neither.

Status quo. Same thing the R's want.

Agreed, for the reasons I said immediately above.

I'm hoping, not betting on, the concept that the Biden political team recognizes that they may have such problems with mass immigration these next two years that putting their heads in the sand is untenable.

So, take it on as a competent governance policy set. Probably won't get it through in this Congress, but make clear that there are those willing to actually address it. Real solutions, not a "wall".

They do like the contrast.

But I expect they'll make more noise on issues where they know they have large majority support for their answers. They likely won't get many of those through either, but easier politics.

But ignoring the border is a problem...

[cradleandshoot]

How does the left "like this as a campaign issue"??

..

The opportunity to paint R's as racist, nativist meanies.

But I think when you're the party in power that's a tougher play, given that the issues are real.

Apparently no.

You see any proposed Immigration Reform bills coming from the Dems?

Me, neither.

Status quo. Same thing the R's want.

Agreed, for the reasons I said immediately above.

I'm hoping, not betting on, the concept that the Biden political team recognizes that they may have such problems with mass immigration these next two years that putting their heads in the sand is untenable.

So, take it on as a competent governance policy set. Probably won't get it through in this Congress, but make clear that there are those willing to actually address it. Real solutions, not a "wall".

They do like the contrast.

But I expect they'll make more noise on issues where they know they have large majority support for their answers. They likely won't get many of those through either, but easier politics.

But ignoring the border is a problem...

Ignoring the border is a problem??? No chit Sherlock. The border has been ignored for at least 40 years. The border issue could be solved in a few days if the dumb f***s in DC wanted to fix the border. They "ignore" the border because doing so is more expedient than actual immigration reform that solves the problem.

[dislaxxic]

Help me out here. The last time there was a "comprehensive immigration bill" actually up for consideration...i THINK i remember that it came up in a Democratic administration, but had been debated in conference with the Republicans in Congress at the time. Don't remember the specifics (it was a long time ago).

My recollection was that the R's would not budge off their position that there could be no, absolutely NO, "pathway to citizenship" included in the bill. This was, and i think still is, a non-starter for the D's.

It's more complex than that i'm sure...but my recall is telling me that this is the bottom line issue that sank the effort at that time. There has been precious little (read: none) effort at it since.

How will this issue NOT come up again whenever Congress gets back - if they do - to attempt to cobble together a new comprehensive approach?

..

[MDlaxfan76]

How does the left "like this as a campaign issue"??

..

The opportunity to paint R's as racist, nativist meanies.

But I think when you're the party in power that's a tougher play, given that the issues are real.

Apparently no.

You see any proposed Immigration Reform bills coming from the Dems?

Me, neither.

Status quo. Same thing the R's want.

Agreed, for the reasons I said immediately above.

I'm hoping, not betting on, the concept that the Biden political team recognizes that they may have such problems with mass immigration these next two years that putting their heads in the sand is untenable.

So, take it on as a competent governance policy set. Probably won't get it through in this Congress, but make clear that there are those willing to actually address it. Real solutions, not a "wall".

They do like the contrast.

But I expect they'll make more noise on issues where they know they have large majority support for their answers. They likely won't get many of those through either, but easier politics.

But ignoring the border is a problem...

Ignoring the border is a problem??? No chit Sherlock. The border has been ignored for at least 40 years. The border issue could be solved in a few days if the dumb f***s in DC wanted to fix the border. They "ignore" the border because doing so is more expedient than actual immigration reform that solves the problem.

Was I directing my comments at you?
No. So, the "no chit Sherlock" etc is out of bounds.

If you bothered to read and comprehend the actual discussion, you'd know that I agree with you, (absent the hyperbolic exaggerations).
Not in a few days, but real work, significant funding, and smart policy...as I described above.

This is a solvable problem.
But getting people to agree to the solution, requiring compromises, has not been done.
Could be..needs to be...so, for the reasons I described above, maybe the timing lines up...

[MDlaxfan76]

Help me out here. The last time there was a "comprehensive immigration bill" actually up for consideration...i THINK i remember that it came up in a Democratic administration, but had been debated in conference with the Republicans in Congress at the time. Don't remember the specifics (it was a long time ago).

My recollection was that the R's would not budge off their position that there could be no, absolutely NO, "pathway to citizenship" included in the bill. This was, and i think still is, a non-starter for the D's.

It's more complex than that i'm sure...but my recall is telling me that this is the bottom line issue that sank the effort at that time. There has been precious little (read: none) effort at it since.

How will this issue NOT come up again whenever Congress gets back - if they do - to attempt to cobble together a new comprehensive approach?

..

My recollection is that it was in W's Admin that this was closest to getting done, with Rubio as a key sponsor, W's strong support...but you are correct that the hard right demanded border enforcement, no path to citizenship until border enforcement was proven. Not together...non-starter for Dems who didn't trust the GOP, likewise non-starter for GOP who didn't trust the Dems on border enforcement. And problems in Iraq destroyed W's political capitol...he had to use it all up for the 'surge'.

I don't think Obama ever tried.

I don't recall Clinton ever trying.

Reagan did, including a massive amnesty...which GOP hardliners said was a mistake in retrospect.

Race/language/culture has been a huge part of the problem.

[dislaxxic]

...not trusting Dems on border enforcement? Meaning, "no wall, no border enforcement"?? A "wall" was not so much in the conversation then, was it? 'Pubs wanted hard core "enforcement"...that whole subject of opposition seems like a real red herring...political mostly. Can we find out what they meant by "border enforcement? Electronic surveillance and enforcement sure seems the best way nowadays...no?

Maybe we should look for some history on what happened when this came up as possible legislation. I think we'll find that the solution ended up being torpedoed - essentially - by a racist-based opposition to dealing with migrants in the country and those wishing to come.

No, the Dems are not spotless in the effort, but the resistance to being comprehensive about it, on these bottom-line aspects, IMO - came largely from the right.

...and likely will again...

..

[MDlaxfan76]

...not trusting Dems on border enforcement? Meaning, "no wall, no border enforcement"?? A "wall" was not so much in the conversation then, was it? 'Pubs wanted hard core "enforcement"...that whole subject of opposition seems like a real red herring...political mostly. Can we find out what they meant by "border enforcement? Electronic surveillance and enforcement sure seems the best way nowadays...no?

Maybe we should look for some history on what happened when this came up as possible legislation. I think we'll find that the solution ended up being torpedoed - essentially - by a racist-based opposition to dealing with migrants in the country and those wishing to come.

No, the Dems are not spotless in the effort, but the resistance to being comprehensive about it, on these bottom-line aspects, IMO - came largely from the right.

...and likely will again...

..

Again, the leaders of that comprehensive effort happened to be Republicans...W Bush and Rubio out front.
But, yes, it was torpedoed by those on the hard right.

And, yes, they didn't trust the Dems to fund border security, thought they were playing lip service, wouldn't follow through.

And, yes, I agree that it was mostly about "race" and perceived votes to be gained.

There was no "wall" being discussed at the time, but rather dramatically increased technology and personnel levels.

[a fan]

...not trusting Dems on border enforcement? Meaning, "no wall, no border enforcement"?? A "wall" was not so much in the conversation then, was it? 'Pubs wanted hard core "enforcement"...that whole subject of opposition seems like a real red herring...political mostly. Can we find out what they meant by "border enforcement? Electronic surveillance and enforcement sure seems the best way nowadays...no?

Maybe we should look for some history on what happened when this came up as possible legislation. I think we'll find that the solution ended up being torpedoed - essentially - by a racist-based opposition to dealing with migrants in the country and those wishing to come.

No, the Dems are not spotless in the effort, but the resistance to being comprehensive about it, on these bottom-line aspects, IMO - came largely from the right.

...and likely will again...

Both torpedo it. And NEITHER come up with an immigration when they have the power (Obama's first two years, Biden's first two years). This is not a coincidence, my man.

They want status quo. Clear as day that that's what they want.

[kramerica.inc]

Help me out here. The last time there was a "comprehensive immigration bill" actually up for consideration...i THINK i remember that it came up in a Democratic administration, but had been debated in conference with the Republicans in Congress at the time. Don't remember the specifics (it was a long time ago).

My recollection was that the R's would not budge off their position that there could be no, absolutely NO, "pathway to citizenship" included in the bill. This was, and i think still is, a non-starter for the D's.

...

No, the Dems are not spotless in the effort, but the resistance to being comprehensive about it, on these bottom-line aspects, IMO - came largely from the right.

Correct.

The right wouldn't budge AND the left wouldn't budge.

So it was the right's fault for being stubborn.

[MDlaxfan76]

...not trusting Dems on border enforcement? Meaning, "no wall, no border enforcement"?? A "wall" was not so much in the conversation then, was it? 'Pubs wanted hard core "enforcement"...that whole subject of opposition seems like a real red herring...political mostly. Can we find out what they meant by "border enforcement? Electronic surveillance and enforcement sure seems the best way nowadays...no?

Maybe we should look for some history on what happened when this came up as possible legislation. I think we'll find that the solution ended up being torpedoed - essentially - by a racist-based opposition to dealing with migrants in the country and those wishing to come.

No, the Dems are not spotless in the effort, but the resistance to being comprehensive about it, on these bottom-line aspects, IMO - came largely from the right.

...and likely will again...

Both torpedo it. And NEITHER come up with an immigration when they have the power (Obama's first two years, Biden's first two years). This is not a coincidence, my man.

They want status quo. Clear as day that that's what they want.

Probably more fair that the status quo bothers Dems less, so it isn't high on the list of priorities than that they'd actually prefer to not have comprehensive reform.

But could they have gotten comprehensive reform through a filibuster?
It would take a herculean effort to have enough moderates from the GOP be willing to risk involvement.. not impossible, but Obama period they put all their political capital behind healthcare reform. Biden period Covid and Build Back Better, later worked into infrastructure, chips, and 'inflation' reduction (climate and few other things).

Ton of political capital spent...immigration simply not top of the list.

But would they be willing? I think very much so, though some of the further left side wouldn't be happy with compromises.
Same for some moderate R's, willing to get something effective done...but not the hard right.

Gerrymandering is a huge problem in all this...

[MDlaxfan76]

Help me out here. The last time there was a "comprehensive immigration bill" actually up for consideration...i THINK i remember that it came up in a Democratic administration, but had been debated in conference with the Republicans in Congress at the time. Don't remember the specifics (it was a long time ago).

My recollection was that the R's would not budge off their position that there could be no, absolutely NO, "pathway to citizenship" included in the bill. This was, and i think still is, a non-starter for the D's.

...

No, the Dems are not spotless in the effort, but the resistance to being comprehensive about it, on these bottom-line aspects, IMO - came largely from the right.

Correct.

The right wouldn't budge AND the left wouldn't budge.

So it was the right's fault for being stubborn.

Nope, when we got closest to getting it done comprehensively (meaning compromise!), it was a handful of R's in the lead, Dems quite willing, but hard right R's brought it down.

It was a scenario that really could have gotten it done, but W's political capital was spent...