Republicans Lose Impeachment Vote

[0311]

It's time to hang a "No Vacancy" sign on the Statue of Liberty and declare a lengthy moratorium on ALL immigration

IF you have White Skin, your family immigrated to this country, it's a shame they did not that would have hung out when YOUR family came here.

 

[toobfreak]

IF you have White Skin, your family immigrated to this country

Unless you have RED skin, you immigrated here. That matters not.

We have run out of money, room, jobs, resources and infrastructure to take on many more, certainly not at this rate, and certainly without vetting individuals to ascertain just who they are, where they are from, and what they are doing here.

My great-grandparents came her to be AMERICANS and to ADD to the strength of this country. These schmucks are coming here to bring THEIR way of life here just looking for a free ride only COSTING us money.

 

[Kondor3]

Actually, the laws are being adhered to, that's the problem.

Difference of opinion on that, quite honestly.

The law says ANY foreigner can present himself at a point of entry and declare his desire for asylum.

Does the law say that we have to let them into the country while they are awaiting their hearing?

And we have to give him or her a hearing.

It is time to deputize local Justices of the Peace and Magistrates and paralegals to make a first pass at each claim.

To apply a coarse -level filter with respect to country of origin and nature of the so-called oppression right at the entry point.

The problem is we never really had enough people to process these claims, and the guidance is pretty obscure. This is why you have that idiot German family who claim asylum for 17 years because they are paying a fine for homeschooling their kids.

I smell a moratorium coming on Immigration and Asylum Claims, because our system has been so badly abused in recent times.

I also smell a situation in which if a legal barrier is presented to doing such things, that barrier will be overcome fairly quickly.

 

[Kondor3]

Has any President enforced border laws to the letter in the last 60 years?

No, but, so, too, no President had been so derelict in his duty in this context than Old Joe in the last 60 years.

 

[BackAgain]

The big victory for illegals will occur when MAGA idiots kill the Border Bill.

Nah. The big victory for illegals arrived the day Potato became President.

 

[Kondor3]

Obviously horrible policy, in a quickly growing economy with a labor shortage.

Nope. Time to let 'er rip and hang that sign on the old girl...

 

[JoeB131]

Difference of opinion on that, quite honestly.

Yes, but mine happens to be based on a reading of the law and practicality.

Does the law say that we have to let them into the country while they are awaiting their hearing?

Where else could we send them? If they are seeking asylum because they have a reasonable fear of oppression in their home country, then this is where they should be able to stay. The problem with "Stay in Mexico" was that Mexico had no desire to bear the burden if we weren't going to hear their cases in a timely manner. The camps they were staying at were dangerous at best.

Some who have family or sponsors here were placed in the custody of sponsors. That's actually, kind of reasonable.

It is time to deputize local Justices of the Peace and Magistrates and paralegals to make a first pass at each claim.

To apply a coarse -level filter with respect to country of origin and nature of the so-called oppression right at the entry point.

The thing is, if we gave them a fair hearing, most of them WOULD be granted asylum. It sounds like what you want is a biased hearing where their claims can be rejected quickly.

The current rules call for a hearing within 180 days. The reality is that some of these procedures are protracted for four years or more.

I smell a moratorium coming on Immigration and Asylum Claims, because our system has been so badly abused in recent times.

I also smell a situation in which if a legal barrier is presented to doing such things, that barrier will be overcome fairly quickly.

We would have to majorly rewrite our laws, that's kind of the problem.

Frankly, I'm fine with more immigrants. We actually, kind of need them. We aren't replacing Boomers with new workers fast enough. Japan accepts no immigration, and they have whole villages with no one living in them.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes, but mine happens to be based on a reading of the law and practicality.

You are not the only one who has a modicum of understanding of related law.

As to "practicality", in advance of any related effort, that is subject to a wide discretion.

Where else could we send them? If they are seeking asylum because they have a reasonable fear of oppression in their home country, then this is where they should be able to stay.

Where? The country through which they transited on their way here.

The "Asylum System" has been grotesquely abused by ECONOMIC migrants in recent years and it's time to end that.

What is now needed is a coarse filter.

If you come from Country A or B or C then you cannot make that claim because there IS no systemic oppression there.

If you come from Country X or Y or Z then you CAN make that claim but if you transit a 3rd country you must wait there.

One way or another this abuse of the Asylum System will be coming to an end.

For pro-immigrant advocates, your choice is whether to give X and Y and Z a chance or to shut the whole thing down.

Because you (and they) are at-risk of seeing the whole thing shut down.

Expect the abrogation and denunciation of international treaties on the subject if you don't bend - considerably - and soon.

The problem with "Stay in Mexico" was that Mexico had no desire to bear the burden if we weren't going to hear their cases in a timely manner. The camps they were staying at were dangerous at best.

That is not our problem. We owe these migrants nothing. Zero. Your near-future job will be to effect Damage Control.

Some who have family or sponsors here were placed in the custody of sponsors. That's actually, kind of reasonable.

"Some" . Not a convincing counterpoint. Worse yet (for pro-advocates)... it borders on irrelevant given the National Mood.

The thing is, if we gave them a fair hearing, most of them WOULD be granted asylum. It sounds like what you want is a biased hearing where their laims can be rejected quickly.

You are concerned about "fairness" to outsiders.

I am concerned about "fairness" to my own people.

The granting of Asylum should be the Exception rather than the Rule.

To do otherwise causes us to be swamped with millions upon millions of newcomers that we really don't need.

Our own needs and interests must be absolutely paramount in governing how many - and what kind - we welcome to join us.

Pro-immigrant advocates have long-since lost sight of that primary criteria and will now witness The Corrective Action.

The current rules call for a hearing within 180 days. The reality is that some of these procedures are protracted for four years or more.

You speak of Processing time. I speak of limiting the Volume to Be Processed... a monstrously huge difference.

We would have to majorly rewrite our laws, that's kind of the problem.

We have all the laws we need already to reestablish border control and to staunch the flow and reject admission to most.

Frankly, I'm fine with more immigrants. We actually, kind of need them. We aren't replacing Boomers with new workers fast enough. Japan accepts no immigration, and they have whole villages with no one living in them.

Yes. Your sympathies in this vein are understood. You are out-of-synch with a vast and growing number of your countrymen.

A simplified rendering of the argument would be something along the following lines...

--------

You and I live in the same home.

We both have ownership rights.

We both have a say in who is allowed to come into our home.

You want somebody to come into the house.

You require my assent to allow that person to come into our house.

I do not give that assent.

The "other" may therefore not come into our house.

You have been bringing people into the house despite my disapproval and I have been powerless to stop you.

The days of you having the power to override my rights in the matter are coming to an end.

--------

That is what you-and-yours are up against, this time around.

The morning of November 6, 2024, may give us an indication of whether that sort of remedy is on the near-term horizen.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

The bill that allows 5,000 illegals we know nothing about to cross into the country each and every day? Why should we allow ANY? They are lowering the caliber of schools and housing property values where they settle, have total disregard for American laws, and are demanding and entitled.

This is not true.

Border bill supporters combat misleading claims that it would let in more migrants

A provision of border security legislation that would give the U.S. a new authority to block migrants from entering the country has become a central line of attack from many Republicans who are opposing the legislation.

apnews.com

 

[Lisa558]

This is not true.

Border bill supporters combat misleading claims that it would let in more migrants

A provision of border security legislation that would give the U.S. a new authority to block migrants from entering the country has become a central line of attack from many Republicans who are opposing the legislation.

apnews.com

Sounds bad to me. Your link said Homeland Security has authority to block entry once 4,000 illegals swarm in in a single day, and that blocking entry becomes mandatory once 5,000 has crossed in.

That means no special authority to stop the first 4,000 scofflaws, and after that they can decide to let another 1,000 of the lowlifes in before they MUST stop them.

So what the bill does is allow 5,000 of them in EVERY DAY before action is taken to stop them. It essentials codifies the entry of 5,000 illegals in a day.

Horrible bill. Glad it was blocked.

 

[jbrownson0831]

House Republicans Fail To Impeach DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

In a stunning defeat for GOP leaders, a handful of Republicans joined Democrats in condemning the effort as bad politics, bad policy and unconstitutional.

www.huffpost.com

Embarrassing defeat for Speaker Mike Johnson.

And a victory for the America hating, lawbreaking left.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

Sounds bad to me. Your link said Homeland Security has authority to block entry once 4,000 illegals swarm in in a single day, and that blocking entry becomes mandatory once 5,000 has crossed in.

That means no special authority to stop the first 4,000 scofflaws, and after that they can decide to let another 1,000 of the lowlifes in before they MUST stop them.

So what the bill does is allow 5,000 of them in EVERY DAY before action is taken to stop them. It essentials codifies the entry of 5,000 illegals in a day.

Horrible bill. Glad it was blocked.

5000 encounters, not crossed. A huge difference.

 

[Lisa558]

5000 encounters, not crossed. A huge difference.

And they let in 95% of the encounters via catch-and-release. Hardly a difference.

Why are you so opposed to blocking them all? They make our country worse.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

And they let in 95% of the encounters via catch-and-release. Hardly a difference.

Why are you so opposed to blocking them all? They make our country worse.

Do you have a link to this number?

 

[Lisa558]

Do you have a link to this number?

You didn’t answer my question: why don’t you want to block them all? The vast majority of them have bogus claims of asylum and are here lowering the caliber of our country.

 

[JoeB131]

Where? The country through which they transited on their way here.

The "Asylum System" has been grotesquely abused by ECONOMIC migrants in recent years and it's time to end that.

What is now needed is a coarse filter.

If you come from Country A or B or C then you cannot make that claim because there IS no systemic oppression there.

Well, funny that. We just gave "aslyum" to a German family because they had to pay a fine to home school their kids. It took 17 years to get to this point.

Seems the standards are already pretty low if paying a fine in a democratic ally STILL qualifies you as being "oppressed".

If you come from Country X or Y or Z then you CAN make that claim but if you transit a 3rd country you must wait there.

One way or another this abuse of the Asylum System will be coming to an end.

Or not. Again- reality, they are going to keep coming. mexico isn't playing along.

That is what you-and-yours are up against, this time around.

The morning of November 6, 2024, may give us an indication of whether that sort of remedy is on the near-term horizen.

So even though you've railed against Trump, you'll vote for him despite his threats to turn the country into a dictatorship because YOU JUST HATE BROWN PEOPLE THAT MUCH!!!

Got it.

 

[JoeB131]

Why are you so opposed to blocking them all? They make our country worse.

Funny, I am positive someone said the same thing about the Jews.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

You didn’t answer my question: why don’t you want to block them all? The vast majority of them have bogus claims of asylum and are here lowering the caliber of our country.

It's not 95% catch and release. You made that up. You are making up how many have bogus claims of asylum as well. Stopping them and giving them a hearing is what is supposed to happen. We should let in legitimate asylum seekers. We should do background checks as well. We need more resources to deal the huge numbers of them which is exactly what the bill was intended to do.

DJT doesn't want a win for Biden and will sabotage anything, even better border security.

 

[Lisa558]

It's not 95% catch and release. You made that up. You are making up how many have bogus claims of asylum as well. Stopping them and giving them a hearing is what is supposed to happen. We should let in legitimate asylum seekers. We should do background checks as well. We need more resources to deal the huge numbers of them which is exactly what the bill was intended to do.

DJT doesn't want a win for Biden and will sabotage anything, even better border security.

Only about 10% are legitimate Asylum seekers. Why are you so determined to let these scofflaws, who come in and demand hotel rooms and the food they’re used to, lower the caliber of our country?

And Biden is trying to codify acceptance of 5000 illegals before any attempt to stop them is required. Glad he wasn’t able to get away with it.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

Only about 10% are legitimate Asylum seekers. Why are you so determined to let these scofflaws, who come in and demand hotel rooms and the food they’re used to, lower the caliber of our country?

And Biden is trying to codify acceptance of 5000 illegals before any attempt to stop them is required. Glad he wasn’t able to get away with it.

Where do you the 10% number?

Your last sentence wrong. They are supposed to get hearings, not let in without being stopped at all.