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

[a fan]

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.

Trump ran on immigration reform, Kram. Turning on Everify, and hold big business accountable.

Remind me: what did he do about it when he had total control for two years? Oh, that's right----he passed a tax cut for the 1%ers, and exploded deficit spending, but gee whiz, he just didn't have the time to pass the single bill that was his ENTIRE platform.

[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.

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...

Perhaps. And more recently:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/18 ... biden-news

Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, said at a virtual news conference. “They voted to restore common sense, compassion, and competence in our government. And part of that mandate is fixing our immigration system, which is a cornerstone of Trump’s hateful horror show.”

...

Mr. Menendez and Representative Linda T. Sánchez, Democrat of California, unveiled the immigration legislation, which will be called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and is based on a proposal Mr. Biden announced on his first day in office. The two lawmakers were joined by 10 of their colleagues for the announcement.

The centerpiece of the legislation is an eight-year path to citizenship for most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States as of Jan. 1. After passing background checks and paying taxes, they would be allowed to live and work in the United States for five years. After that, they could apply for a green card, giving them permanent status in the United States and the opportunity to win citizenship after three more years.

But the bill tries to make the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in more than three decades. It would sweep away restrictions on family-based immigration, making it easier for spouses and children to join their families already in the country. And it would expand worker visas to allow more foreigners to come to the United States for jobs.

Unlike previous efforts to overhaul immigration, the legislation does not include a large focus on increased border enforcement. Instead, the bill adds resources to process migrants legally at ports of entry and invests $4 billion over four years in distressed economies in the hopes of preventing people from fleeing to the United States because of security and economic crises.

Mr. Menendez acknowledged that it would be difficult to win the support of the 10 Republican senators needed to pass Mr. Biden’s legislation. The Senate is split 50-50 and Democrats will need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

But Mr. Menendez rejected arguments by some immigration advocates that Congress should pursue more targeted bills that provide citizenship to smaller, more discrete groups of undocumented people.

“We will never win an argument that we don’t have the courage to make,” he said. “We will do the righteous thing and make our case for both inclusive and lasting immigration reform. And we have seen in poll after poll, the vast majority of Americans are standing with us.”

Darn Republicans, not playing nice and wanting it all their way.

[dislaxxic]

Republicans aren't playing at all, except for gratuitous Faux News propaganda. See if you can find some examples of REPUBLICAN efforts at crafting immigration reform legislation, Kram. We all KNOW what they are against...what the FORK are they FOR??

..

[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...

Perhaps. And more recently:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/18 ... biden-news

Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, said at a virtual news conference. “They voted to restore common sense, compassion, and competence in our government. And part of that mandate is fixing our immigration system, which is a cornerstone of Trump’s hateful horror show.”

...

Mr. Menendez and Representative Linda T. Sánchez, Democrat of California, unveiled the immigration legislation, which will be called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and is based on a proposal Mr. Biden announced on his first day in office. The two lawmakers were joined by 10 of their colleagues for the announcement.

The centerpiece of the legislation is an eight-year path to citizenship for most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States as of Jan. 1. After passing background checks and paying taxes, they would be allowed to live and work in the United States for five years. After that, they could apply for a green card, giving them permanent status in the United States and the opportunity to win citizenship after three more years.

But the bill tries to make the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in more than three decades. It would sweep away restrictions on family-based immigration, making it easier for spouses and children to join their families already in the country. And it would expand worker visas to allow more foreigners to come to the United States for jobs.

Unlike previous efforts to overhaul immigration, the legislation does not include a large focus on increased border enforcement. Instead, the bill adds resources to process migrants legally at ports of entry and invests $4 billion over four years in distressed economies in the hopes of preventing people from fleeing to the United States because of security and economic crises.

Mr. Menendez acknowledged that it would be difficult to win the support of the 10 Republican senators needed to pass Mr. Biden’s legislation. The Senate is split 50-50 and Democrats will need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

But Mr. Menendez rejected arguments by some immigration advocates that Congress should pursue more targeted bills that provide citizenship to smaller, more discrete groups of undocumented people.

“We will never win an argument that we don’t have the courage to make,” he said. “We will do the righteous thing and make our case for both inclusive and lasting immigration reform. And we have seen in poll after poll, the vast majority of Americans are standing with us.”

Darn Republicans, not playing nice and wanting it all their way.

Yes, but I don't think they felt that the Republicans were willing to negotiate the rest of what would be needed. It was a hard no to any negotiation at all. A serious negotiation would have been about border enforcement, but the GOP made it a hard no based on the rest. They want (or at least their hard right base wants) solely border enforcement.

So, gesture made, no real political capital spent.

But the situation is rising in priority, Dems know they could be vulnerable if they don't address border enforcement, so we may see this bill plus border $ get introduced. Most of the GOP will remain a hard no, but there's a possibility some rational folks would entertain the deal.

But then you have the House. And knowing that, there's little incentive for GOP Senators to be seen willing to provide the things the Dems want, no matter the border $.

And of course there's the lobbyists who won't want E-verify, which I think is essential to this comprehensive effort to bring nearly all immigrants into the legal light.

[a fan]

Perhaps. And more recently:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/18 ... biden-news

Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, said at a virtual news conference. “They voted to restore common sense, compassion, and competence in our government. And part of that mandate is fixing our immigration system, which is a cornerstone of Trump’s hateful horror show.”

...

Mr. Menendez and Representative Linda T. Sánchez, Democrat of California, unveiled the immigration legislation, which will be called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and is based on a proposal Mr. Biden announced on his first day in office. The two lawmakers were joined by 10 of their colleagues for the announcement.

The centerpiece of the legislation is an eight-year path to citizenship for most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States as of Jan. 1. After passing background checks and paying taxes, they would be allowed to live and work in the United States for five years. After that, they could apply for a green card, giving them permanent status in the United States and the opportunity to win citizenship after three more years.

But the bill tries to make the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in more than three decades. It would sweep away restrictions on family-based immigration, making it easier for spouses and children to join their families already in the country. And it would expand worker visas to allow more foreigners to come to the United States for jobs.

Unlike previous efforts to overhaul immigration, the legislation does not include a large focus on increased border enforcement. Instead, the bill adds resources to process migrants legally at ports of entry and invests $4 billion over four years in distressed economies in the hopes of preventing people from fleeing to the United States because of security and economic crises.

Mr. Menendez acknowledged that it would be difficult to win the support of the 10 Republican senators needed to pass Mr. Biden’s legislation. The Senate is split 50-50 and Democrats will need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

But Mr. Menendez rejected arguments by some immigration advocates that Congress should pursue more targeted bills that provide citizenship to smaller, more discrete groups of undocumented people.

“We will never win an argument that we don’t have the courage to make,” he said. “We will do the righteous thing and make our case for both inclusive and lasting immigration reform. And we have seen in poll after poll, the vast majority of Americans are standing with us.”

Darn Republicans, not playing nice and wanting it all their way.

No mention of EVerify. Most of the Bill is about keeping families together.

Yep. You're right. This bill isn't REALLY about immigration reform. It's small time stuff. Hard pass.

[dislaxxic]

Yes, but I don't think they felt that the Republicans were willing to negotiate the rest of what would be needed. It was a hard no to any negotiation at all.

Don't forget...Rush Limbaugh yelled at Little Marco for days on the EIB Network and the bill died a racist death.

..

[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.

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...

It is a solvable problem that has been ignored since Reagan's amnesty in the 80s. You remember what part 2 of that deal was suppose to be? It is not a solvable problem because the players in DC don't want it solved. Despite all of your well crafted verbiage you conveniently forget that simple fact. Hence the reason for awarding you my no chit Sherlock response. If they WANTED to fix the problem it would have been fixed a long time ago. Republicans have their reason for ignoring the border and Democrats have their reasons. I do know that it can be done ask anyone who has ever traveled into Canada from Niagara Falls. They take border security there very seriously. If you don't believe me check it out. FTR, I find myself less interested in reading what you have to say on a daily basis. The term SSDD comes into mind.

[cradleandshoot]

Republicans aren't playing at all, except for gratuitous Faux News propaganda. See if you can find some examples of REPUBLICAN efforts at crafting immigration reform legislation, Kram. We all KNOW what they are against...what the FORK are they FOR??

..

You actually stumbled into the truth Dis. Nobody in DC wants to fix the border or anything else for that matter. Why would you fix something that you need as a platform to get reelected. Our late Congress woman Louise Slaughter said it in her last campaign for reelection. She wanted to go back to DC to fix what was broken. I guess the 16 terms she spent in Congress never allowed her the opportunity to fix what was broken.

[MDlaxfan76]

Perhaps. And more recently:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/18 ... biden-news

Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, said at a virtual news conference. “They voted to restore common sense, compassion, and competence in our government. And part of that mandate is fixing our immigration system, which is a cornerstone of Trump’s hateful horror show.”

...

Mr. Menendez and Representative Linda T. Sánchez, Democrat of California, unveiled the immigration legislation, which will be called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and is based on a proposal Mr. Biden announced on his first day in office. The two lawmakers were joined by 10 of their colleagues for the announcement.

The centerpiece of the legislation is an eight-year path to citizenship for most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States as of Jan. 1. After passing background checks and paying taxes, they would be allowed to live and work in the United States for five years. After that, they could apply for a green card, giving them permanent status in the United States and the opportunity to win citizenship after three more years.

But the bill tries to make the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in more than three decades. It would sweep away restrictions on family-based immigration, making it easier for spouses and children to join their families already in the country. And it would expand worker visas to allow more foreigners to come to the United States for jobs.

Unlike previous efforts to overhaul immigration, the legislation does not include a large focus on increased border enforcement. Instead, the bill adds resources to process migrants legally at ports of entry and invests $4 billion over four years in distressed economies in the hopes of preventing people from fleeing to the United States because of security and economic crises.

Mr. Menendez acknowledged that it would be difficult to win the support of the 10 Republican senators needed to pass Mr. Biden’s legislation. The Senate is split 50-50 and Democrats will need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

But Mr. Menendez rejected arguments by some immigration advocates that Congress should pursue more targeted bills that provide citizenship to smaller, more discrete groups of undocumented people.

“We will never win an argument that we don’t have the courage to make,” he said. “We will do the righteous thing and make our case for both inclusive and lasting immigration reform. And we have seen in poll after poll, the vast majority of Americans are standing with us.”

Darn Republicans, not playing nice and wanting it all their way.

No mention of EVerify. Most of the Bill is about keeping families together.

Yep. You're right. This bill isn't REALLY about immigration reform. It's small time stuff. Hard pass.

Yes, but effective legislative negotiation puts forward the necessary pieces from the alternative POV, both sides participating, then with compromises made.

But this was never going to happen in that environment, and with other major priorities ahead of this one, so just PR for their own base.

[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...

It is a solvable problem that has been ignored since Reagan's amnesty in the 80s. You remember what part 2 of that deal was suppose to be? It is not a solvable problem because the players in DC don't want it solved. Despite all of your well crafted verbiage you conveniently forget that simple fact. Hence the reason for awarding you my no chit Sherlock response. If they WANTED to fix the problem it would have been fixed a long time ago. Republicans have their reason for ignoring the border and Democrats have their reasons. I do know that it can be done ask anyone who has ever traveled into Canada from Niagara Falls. They take border security there very seriously. If you don't believe me check it out. FTR, I find myself less interested in reading what you have to say on a daily basis. The term SSDD comes into mind.

cradle, it is extremely easy to walk across the border to Canada, should one want to do so. They don't face any pressure from millions fleeing war, abuse, poverty.

But put that aside, I agree that neither side has seen political gain from solving the problem...for the reasons I enumerated. No need to use the "Sherlock" with me. It's offensive and only displays your not bothering to read or comprehend the prior discussion.

We know that you hate both parties (Dems much more) but what you clearly also think is that government can't be effective. So, why bother...

[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.

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...

It is a solvable problem that has been ignored since Reagan's amnesty in the 80s. You remember what part 2 of that deal was suppose to be? It is not a solvable problem because the players in DC don't want it solved. Despite all of your well crafted verbiage you conveniently forget that simple fact. Hence the reason for awarding you my no chit Sherlock response. If they WANTED to fix the problem it would have been fixed a long time ago. Republicans have their reason for ignoring the border and Democrats have their reasons. I do know that it can be done ask anyone who has ever traveled into Canada from Niagara Falls. They take border security there very seriously. If you don't believe me check it out. FTR, I find myself less interested in reading what you have to say on a daily basis. The term SSDD comes into mind.

cradle, it is extremely easy to walk across the border to Canada, should one want to do so. They don't face any pressure from millions fleeing war, abuse, poverty.

But put that aside, I agree that neither side has seen political gain from solving the problem...for the reasons I enumerated. No need to use the "Sherlock" with me. It's offensive and only displays your not bothering to read or comprehend the prior discussion.

We know that you hate both parties (Dems much more) but what you clearly also think is that government can't be effective. So, why bother...

One better have a damn passport my friend. Back in 1995 my girlfriend at the time and I went to Toronto for the weekend to see the Phantom of the Opera. We crossed over the Peace Bridge where US Customs decided to give our car the "treatment" we must have fit some profile as being dangerous drug dealers. We spent around 3 hours in their little garage while they tore the car apart, tore our luggage apart and circled the dogs around looking for drugs. The ironic part is they were ticked off when they found nothing. I encourage you strongly to venture over into Canada and enjoy the border experience yourself, just leave your brother in law at home. He has red flag written all over him.

[kramerica.inc]

"President Biden, you are the first president of the United States in a very long time that has not built, not even one meter of wall, and that, we thank you for that, sir."

-Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador

I bet he is thankful.

[Farfromgeneva]

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...

It is a solvable problem that has been ignored since Reagan's amnesty in the 80s. You remember what part 2 of that deal was suppose to be? It is not a solvable problem because the players in DC don't want it solved. Despite all of your well crafted verbiage you conveniently forget that simple fact. Hence the reason for awarding you my no chit Sherlock response. If they WANTED to fix the problem it would have been fixed a long time ago. Republicans have their reason for ignoring the border and Democrats have their reasons. I do know that it can be done ask anyone who has ever traveled into Canada from Niagara Falls. They take border security there very seriously. If you don't believe me check it out. FTR, I find myself less interested in reading what you have to say on a daily basis. The term SSDD comes into mind.

cradle, it is extremely easy to walk across the border to Canada, should one want to do so. They don't face any pressure from millions fleeing war, abuse, poverty.

But put that aside, I agree that neither side has seen political gain from solving the problem...for the reasons I enumerated. No need to use the "Sherlock" with me. It's offensive and only displays your not bothering to read or comprehend the prior discussion.

We know that you hate both parties (Dems much more) but what you clearly also think is that government can't be effective. So, why bother...

Can get over from Potsdam/Clarkson no problem

[Farfromgeneva]

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...

It is a solvable problem that has been ignored since Reagan's amnesty in the 80s. You remember what part 2 of that deal was suppose to be? It is not a solvable problem because the players in DC don't want it solved. Despite all of your well crafted verbiage you conveniently forget that simple fact. Hence the reason for awarding you my no chit Sherlock response. If they WANTED to fix the problem it would have been fixed a long time ago. Republicans have their reason for ignoring the border and Democrats have their reasons. I do know that it can be done ask anyone who has ever traveled into Canada from Niagara Falls. They take border security there very seriously. If you don't believe me check it out. FTR, I find myself less interested in reading what you have to say on a daily basis. The term SSDD comes into mind.

cradle, it is extremely easy to walk across the border to Canada, should one want to do so. They don't face any pressure from millions fleeing war, abuse, poverty.

But put that aside, I agree that neither side has seen political gain from solving the problem...for the reasons I enumerated. No need to use the "Sherlock" with me. It's offensive and only displays your not bothering to read or comprehend the prior discussion.

We know that you hate both parties (Dems much more) but what you clearly also think is that government can't be effective. So, why bother...

One better have a damn passport my friend. Back in 1995 my girlfriend at the time and I went to Toronto for the weekend to see the Phantom of the Opera. We crossed over the Peace Bridge where US Customs decided to give our car the "treatment" we must have fit some profile as being dangerous drug dealers. We spent around 3 hours in their little garage while they tore the car apart, tore our luggage apart and circled the dogs around looking for drugs. The ironic part is they were ticked off when they found nothing. I encourage you strongly to venture over into Canada and enjoy the border experience yourself, just leave your brother in law at home. He has red flag written all over him.

Crossing at Niagara Falls or a major thorofare isn’t the same as the rest of the border. Conflating two wildly different things. Getting over from Potsdam ain’t that hard.

[Kismet]

Crossing at Niagara Falls or a major th roof are isn’t the same as the rest of the border. Conflating two wildly different things. Getting over from Potsdam ain’t that hard.

The correct method for crossing the border from Potsdam is - drive to Massena, then cross at Cornwall (stop at Mohwak rez to get a wooden lacrosse stick); load up the vehicle with duty free liquor after crossing. Proceed down 401 highway southwest to Johnstown ON and cross back into the USA at Ogdensburg claiming to be returning tourists (or better yet if in Winter borrow skis and rack, place on your car roof and say you went skiing). Back to Potsdam through Canton. Unload liquor for party and enjoy.

[Farfromgeneva]

Crossing at Niagara Falls or a major th roof are isn’t the same as the rest of the border. Conflating two wildly different things. Getting over from Potsdam ain’t that hard.

The correct method for crossing the border from Potsdam is - drive to Massena, then cross at Cornwall (stop at Mohwak rez to get a wooden lacrosse stick); load up the vehicle with duty free liquor after crossing. Proceed down 401 highway southwest to Johnstown ON and cross back into the USA at Ogdensburg claiming to be returning tourists (or better yet if in Winter borrow skis and rack, place on your car roof and say you went skiing). Back to Potsdam through Canton. Unload liquor for party and enjoy.

My sister went there, SUNY Potsdam (played women’s hockey, wasn’t tough and was tiny but a figure skater in HS) ages ago. My dumb cousin was visiting, went to Canada when you had that 18/21 delta on legal age, and asked for import only to get a Bud light. (This was like 86 or 87, I was single digit aged but the story never dies). Their sorority house could be hit by a thrown rock from across the border I believe.

[Kismet]

Crossing at Niagara Falls or a major th roof are isn’t the same as the rest of the border. Conflating two wildly different things. Getting over from Potsdam ain’t that hard.

The correct method for crossing the border from Potsdam is - drive to Massena, then cross at Cornwall (stop at Mohwak rez to get a wooden lacrosse stick); load up the vehicle with duty free liquor after crossing. Proceed down 401 highway southwest to Johnstown ON and cross back into the USA at Ogdensburg claiming to be returning tourists (or better yet if in Winter borrow skis and rack, place on your car roof and say you went skiing). Back to Potsdam through Canton. Unload liquor for party and enjoy.

My sister went there, SUNY Potsdam (played women’s hockey, wasn’t tough and was tiny but a figure skater in HS) ages ago. My dumb cousin was visiting, went to Canada when you had that 18/21 delta on legal age, and asked for import only to get a Bud light. (This was like 86 or 87, I was single digit aged but the story never dies). Their sorority house could be hit by a thrown rock from across the border I believe.

You have to know your liquor and what the booze rules in Canada are. Also need to pay CASH for anything you buy in Canada thus stop at currency exchange adjacent to duty-free location. Don't ask for any receipts. If you get one, shred it and drop in the trash can on your way out of each location. My experience preceded the age differential. Also discovered that not a good idea to drive to Quebec with studded snow tires (which are illegal in Canada) while martial law is in effect.

[Farfromgeneva]

Crossing at Niagara Falls or a major th roof are isn’t the same as the rest of the border. Conflating two wildly different things. Getting over from Potsdam ain’t that hard.

The correct method for crossing the border from Potsdam is - drive to Massena, then cross at Cornwall (stop at Mohwak rez to get a wooden lacrosse stick); load up the vehicle with duty free liquor after crossing. Proceed down 401 highway southwest to Johnstown ON and cross back into the USA at Ogdensburg claiming to be returning tourists (or better yet if in Winter borrow skis and rack, place on your car roof and say you went skiing). Back to Potsdam through Canton. Unload liquor for party and enjoy.

My sister went there, SUNY Potsdam (played women’s hockey, wasn’t tough and was tiny but a figure skater in HS) ages ago. My dumb cousin was visiting, went to Canada when you had that 18/21 delta on legal age, and asked for import only to get a Bud light. (This was like 86 or 87, I was single digit aged but the story never dies). Their sorority house could be hit by a thrown rock from across the border I believe.

You have to know your liquor and what the booze rules in Canada are. Also need to pay CASH for anything you buy in Canada thus stop at currency exchange adjacent to duty-free location. Don't ask for any receipts. If you get one, shred it and drop in the trash can on your way out of each location. My experience preceded the age differential. Also discovered that not a good idea to drive to Quebec with studded snow tires (which are illegal in Canada) while martial law is in effect.

I like your style. Problem solver!

[Seacoaster(1)]

"The correct method for crossing the border from Potsdam is - drive to Massena, then cross at Cornwall (stop at Mohwak rez to get a wooden lacrosse stick); load up the vehicle with duty free liquor after crossing. Proceed down 401 highway southwest to Johnstown ON and cross back into the USA at Ogdensburg claiming to be returning tourists (or better yet if in Winter borrow skis and rack, place on your car roof and say you went skiing). Back to Potsdam through Canton. Unload liquor for party and enjoy. "

Is this from the omnibus SUNY-Potsdam/St. Lawrence University Freshman Orientation Package?

[Kismet]

"The correct method for crossing the border from Potsdam is - drive to Massena, then cross at Cornwall (stop at Mohwak rez to get a wooden lacrosse stick); load up the vehicle with duty free liquor after crossing. Proceed down 401 highway southwest to Johnstown ON and cross back into the USA at Ogdensburg claiming to be returning tourists (or better yet if in Winter borrow skis and rack, place on your car roof and say you went skiing). Back to Potsdam through Canton. Unload liquor for party and enjoy. "

Is this from the omnibus SUNY-Potsdam/St. Lawrence University Freshman Orientation Package?

Never read either of those. Can confirm it wasn't in the Clarkson packet, though. My sources were/are all word of mouth.