President Joe Biden’s evolution on the key election issue of immigration entered a new phase when he promised to “shut down the border right now” if given new powers by Congress.
Giving them what they want does increase their power.
Do you think they’re going to allow the border to be opened again and asylum seekers allowed in again one of these days because they love immigrants so much?
Giving them what they want does increase their power.
93% of Americans share some concern about border. Do your really think holding out on behalf of principles and us 7% of sane individuals strengthens the non-fascists, in a democratic system?
Do you think they’re going to allow the border to be opened again and asylum seekers allowed in again one of these days because they love immigrants so much?
… do you think that’s what the current compromise bill being proposed does? And do you think that any policy enacted will be unable to be repealed under a non-fascist government?
Sorry, is “shares some concerns about the border” the same as “wanting to shut everything down and stop anyone from coming in?”
And if shutting down the border is not what is being proposed, maybe Biden shouldn’t be pledging to shut down the border.
The agreement is expected to give the executive branch a new legal authority to effectively suspend asylum in between official ports of entry when migrant crossings surpass certain thresholds. That would affect remote areas in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas where migrants regularly cross into the U.S. illegally to surrender themselves to overtaxed federal immigration officials who often release them because they don’t have the resources to screen everyone for asylum.
The power, which Mr. Biden referred to as an authority to “shut down the border” on Friday, would be mandated after average daily migrant crossings hit 5,000 over seven days, or 8,500 in a single day. It could also be activated on a discretionary basis after average daily crossings surpass 4,000 in a week. There would also be a limit on the number of days each year the president could invoke the authority.
When the authority is invoked, migrants who cross into the U.S. illegally would not be allowed to ask for asylum, and would face swift deportation to Mexico or their home country. Exceptions would be made for those who pass screenings for other, more difficult-to-obtain forms of humanitarian refuge, including protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
The use of strong rhetoric can sway people who are vulnerable to emotional appeals on issues they understand little about. Like the majority of America on the border.
We’re a country whose most famous symbol has a poem welcoming people seeking asylum at its base. The irony seems lost.
I don’t disagree. I actually mentioned that earlier today, in fact. But sanity and virtue are not always winning issues in a democracy - or in politics in general. We work with what we have, not what we want.
A movement that Republicans embrace, so how many concessions should they be given?
As I said, any number of concessions on policy that do not increase their power (ie capitulation to fascism).
Giving them what they want does increase their power.
Do you think they’re going to allow the border to be opened again and asylum seekers allowed in again one of these days because they love immigrants so much?
93% of Americans share some concern about border. Do your really think holding out on behalf of principles and us 7% of sane individuals strengthens the non-fascists, in a democratic system?
… do you think that’s what the current compromise bill being proposed does? And do you think that any policy enacted will be unable to be repealed under a non-fascist government?
Sorry, is “shares some concerns about the border” the same as “wanting to shut everything down and stop anyone from coming in?”
And if shutting down the border is not what is being proposed, maybe Biden shouldn’t be pledging to shut down the border.
We’re a country whose most famous symbol has a poem welcoming people seeking asylum at its base. The irony seems lost.
The use of strong rhetoric can sway people who are vulnerable to emotional appeals on issues they understand little about. Like the majority of America on the border.
I don’t disagree. I actually mentioned that earlier today, in fact. But sanity and virtue are not always winning issues in a democracy - or in politics in general. We work with what we have, not what we want.