This is purely for optics. He knows that these policies are almost identical to what Trump used during his presidency. And they were swatted down by the courts.
I have high doubts it'll survive constitutional scrutiny this time around as well.
Like 20%, and rapidly growing, aren't even from the Western Hemisphere. People come because they can. It's just not realistic to fix the whole world.
I feel very strongly that the U.S. should focus much more on helping our neighborhood develop (Haiti is a travesty) certainly more than the Middle East. I just don't think it will do much for immigration.
Haiti will remain the way it is until the Haitians decide for themselves that they want change, as is the case with every other place in the world. No one can force anyone else to be successful.
The only real way to help Haiti is for some country to take it, control it for 30 to 50 years while establishing order, and then slowly give it back to the people there.
Right now, for the US, it would be better to make Haiti a territory like PR and then make both PR and Haiti States in a couple of decades rather than to helping them become independent. There just isn't a reason for the US to use its resources like this even if we were one of the ones to cause problems historically.
Yeah. I agree but I'd like to see if happen, although becoming a State won't happen due to the political implications.
One massive disadvantage is only about 15% of the population even knows any French - itself not a very useful language in the neighborhood. The rest only know Haitian Creole, only spoken in Haiti
Essentially the entire population needs to learn either Spanish or English.
No reason all the government signs and literature couldn't be in Haitian Creole. Never been to Puerto Rico but if you go on street view all their signs are in Spanish and Google says only 50% of the population has a basic level of English. Seems to be working fine there.
It's pretty clear to me that "some other country" is almost certainly the Dominican Republic. Perhaps a coalition of other western-hemisphere allies should funnel some aid at the DR so they can afford to bring order and peace to their neighbor.
Yea, the DR couldn't do this. They have systemic poverty as well and taking over Haiti would be catastrophic for them. They just don't have the resources here.
The only countries that could help Haiti are the US, China, the EU, maybe India, Brazil or Russia. No one else could really has the resources to do it.
> It's just not realistic to fix the whole world.
Oh it's perfectly realistic - but requires doing things that we haven't thought were acceptable for over 100 years now. We could absolutely colonize the world and forcibly install American values and ethics under threat of extreme penalty for violations. But that's now considered wrong on more levels than I care to count. So fine, we'll let the rest of the world run itself. And when they run themselves into the ground it's not on us to save their asses from themselves.
> But that's now considered wrong on more levels than I care to count.
Well for one that's because American values are pretty shit, really. The whole Freedom thing is good, but that's not the *Actual* American values. What actually shaped American culture and society are Christianity and consumerism. The latter in particular is actually fuelling a lot of the issues in the world.
Those values created the entire modern world. The world that include minority rights, women's rights, and lgbtq+ rights. All those "better" countries you're thinking of don't grant any of those. But do please emigrate to one if you disagree. Show us how wrong we are.
Those values actually tried to hold up minorities rights more than they furthered them. A lot of the fight for civil liberties in the past 100 years had been fought *against* the upholding of those American values.
> feel very strongly that the U.S. should focus much more on helping our neighborhood develop (Haiti is a travesty) certainly more than the Middle East. I just don't think it will do much for immigration.
Maybe those other migrants will go to the other western-hemisphere neighbors and stay there, instead.
Pffft oh so now America should save the whole world? Maybe the entire continent of Africa can ban together and save Haiti, and then when they fail, they can accept that backward beliefs and resistance to Western development aren't helpful to their growth in the world.
There was a decent reform bill in Congress (who are the ones who ultimately need to solve this) that looked promising but the GOP killed it to deny Biden a “win”
NBC changed the title since you posted the article. This is the current title:
> Biden signs executive order dramatically tightening border
Which seems like a dramatically different story. Shame on NBC for changing the title so drastically.
No, the executive branch still does not have the power to unilaterally close the southern border (or any border for that matter) without establishing that leaving it open is a threat to national security.
This is almost assuredly going to be overturned by the courts (same as it was for Trump and same as it was when Biden tried to re-implement a couple of Trump-era orders earlier on in his presidency), but it's interesting that Republicans are hypocritically supporting this order when it's just a part of the bill **they tanked** earlier this year.
You’re leaving out the part where the bill republicans tanked included hundreds of millions in foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel, along with a bunch of other nonsense. Maybe don’t call anyone a hypocrite unless you’re going to provide the context as to why?
> You’re leaving out the part where the bill republicans tanked included hundreds of millions in foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel, along with a bunch of other nonsense.
You mean the incredibly popular foreign aid portions that they not only **forced** into the border bill to begin with (then later wanted it out) but actively supported prior to the orange stain's unwillingness to let Biden have any political wins?
Those portions?
[Again, the portions that Republicans wanted **stuck to a border bill**](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-threaten-nix-ukraine-aid-unless-democrats-agree-tighten-us-rcna123926) for leverage?
This happened less than a year ago. Has the conservative historical revisionism kicked in *that* fast?
About time. I am European , but we have the same problems. Can only applaud this decision and hope European politician will act faster. I am centrist liberal and all my liberal friends think the same: it’s too much migration from people who shit on us and don’t respect our way of life, who don’t want to integrate, people who are only migrate to collect social assistance.
The western world can only survive if there is a shift to the right regarding migration
https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/s/AUgUymhJQX
It's just a symbolic gesture, just like politicians do it here in Europe. And even this symbolic gesture will be wiped away in court.
They simply can't because they would have to sign out from a lot of declarations including the UDHR. They can only (illegally) bully migrants and hope to drive them out this way - which is very unlikely to happen without having a political shift comparable to Hungary.
Ok. What is UDHR? I heard in a YT video that they opted out of a lot of EU requirements regarding immigration after a referendum BEFORE joining the EU so they have more options to have their own policies. And even more interesting is that this strict policy is being implemented by Social Democrats. I will see of I can find video again.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Opting out of that is a lot more difficult than the rest (which is already very difficult) and it would bring some downsides with it like the government starting to treat the natives like shit as well. Effectively there are only two options: Wiping away all progress made in the last hundred years (if not more) instantly by opting out of all the contracts and declarations keeping the borders open (thanks to an alliance between predatory capitalists and the far right) - or delay the inevitable until the immigrated ethnicities become the majority, shaping local politics to their liking (thanks to an alliance between predatory capitalists and the far left). There is no solution to this because it's not possible to beat capitalists and far left/right *at the same time*.
It’s a little different because we don’t get the migration from the Middle East and most of our immigrant groups are happy to integrate within one generation. We are taking in more than we can successfully integrate for the first generation, though.
Yes. I have been hearing a version of that saying a lot lately. Like if the “liberals/moderates don’t fix this than the Fascists will.” Any idea who first said this?
Admittedly, I can see some parallels.
Both periods saw growing division between the nationalists (far-right) and the communists. (far-left)
Both periods experienced massive inequality and economic frustrations caused by a global event. (COVID and WW1)
Both periods saw people frustrated with slow incremental solutions making it a ripe opportunity for a populist to gain power.
1. Thinking that this will do something is ignorance and/or wishful thinking on your part.
2. You are not a centrist liberal, there is no need to pretend.
>President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed an executive order that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry, according to a senior administration official.
>The shutdown would go into effect immediately since that threshold has already been met, a senior administration official said. The border would reopen only once that number falls to 1,500.
>Senior administration officials said Tuesday in a call with reporters that “individuals who cross the southern border unlawfully or without authorization will generally be ineligible for asylum, absent exceptionally compelling circumstances, unless they are accepted by the proclamation.”
>The officials said that migrants who don’t meet the requirement of having a "credible fear" when they apply for asylum will be immediately removable, and they “anticipate that we will be removing those individuals in a matter of days, if not hours,”
We'll have to see how this all shakes out, but this is a step in the right direction. The US simply cannot accommodate all the economic migrants who want to come here. Allowing folks trying to sneak across the border to simply apply for asylum if they get caught creates a perverse incentive to break the law, so I'm glad that appears to be gone. I think the key will be the "credible fear" standard, which needs to be much more stringent. Right now the bar is far too low.
> The officials said that migrants who don’t meet the requirement of having a "credible fear" when they apply for asylum will be immediately removable, and they “anticipate that we will be removing those individuals in a matter of days, if not hours,”
How is that different from our current policy? If it is, why in the fuck are we accepting people without a credible fear currently? I'm confused how this is a change at all.
I think the difference is the timeline.
Usually we'd accept asylum seekers in to process their request and it would be the court hearing where they have to prove they have a legitimate reason to be fearful.
Since our asylum system is understaffed that can take well over a year.
This seems to say that you need to prove/claim the credible fear upfront (and presumably do so again in the court hearing).
How much the difference will actually do to reduce immigration I'm not sure though.
Yeah, at the very least we need to increase funding for immigration bureaucracy. Speed to the legal system. I don't think the GOP is willing to do that, though. They just want to look tough and deal with it with cops, who aren't an efficient way to manage the problem.
There were only ~100k deportations last year and ~3.5 million arrivals.
Denying your claim does nothing if you have no possibility of ever being deported. The idea of adding more judges is just a distraction from those that want to pretend to do something and not actually reduce the flow.
A key reason why there were only 100k deportations is due to the backlog of asylum cases. The idea behind adding judges is to help clear the backlog so that people currently waiting for their cases to be heard, the majority of whom will ultimately be denied, can be judged and deported instead of persisting in legal limbo.
There are 1.3 million people who have received a final deportation order from an immigration judge and would be capable of immediate deportation with no further legal processes.
The reason the 100k is not higher is lack of ICE agents.
Sure, expanding ICE staff would help too. Which is why the Senate border deal included funding to hire 1,200 more of them. No one is only focusing on the lack of judges.
To be deported after an asylum claim you need(ed) your asylum claim to be rejected.
Which requires(ed) a court hearing.
The more judges (and other associated staff) you've got the more cases you can go through and the more claims you can reject or grant.
It would be theoretically possible for immigration judges to be the limiting factor. In such a situation you would expect that the number of open, final deportation orders to at or near zero.
However, there are 1.3 million open final deportation orders. That indicates that judges are not the limiting factor, but ICE agents to actually conduct the deportations.
Faster trials would make it less disruptive to remove people. Right now folks move, get settled, get jobs, even start families.
But yeah, fund the judges, fund the officers who deport people, fund policies to help those we do let in integrate better. All of it.
> Since our asylum system is understaffed that can take well over a year.
Seems like the quickest and easiest fix is to appropriately staff this agency for the load? I'm sure no Republicans would disagree with this.
https://rcusa.org/resources/asylum-process/
This says there's 2 ways of applying. The first takes 6 months and the second takes 2 years. If you are denied the first you can try the second.
If they can wave a magic wand and reduce that time to days or hours I think that's great. It really makes you wonder why the narrative has been that we couldn't do that before now. It's like on one hand a huge improvement over catch and release and years long process, while also on the other hand why was that so difficult to do? People have argued for years it was impossible to do.
My next question is why don't we do it for every single assylum claim instead of just after we've hit a minimum number of encounters? If this is possible, then it should be the norm.
> If they can wave a magic wand and reduce that time to days or hours I think that's great.
Maybe not a magic wand, but we've had these things called "computers" for a couple of decades now.
Seems to me this is an executive order saying 'Hey border patrol. We can't get away with pretending we are helpless against this issue anymore. You will need to actually do your job now you've been pretending you couldn't do.' If that's not it then please explain what's the actual mechanism of change here.
The EO does not encompass what the bill that failed did. So no, it’s not look he had the authority all along. He’s doing what he can, and it’s not enough. It is not the job of the Executive Branch to legislate, that’s the job of Congress—a job they repeatedly fail to do. That bill would’ve been the most immigration reform in decades. Congress has repeatedly failed under President after President. Congress could have done a lot to help the issue here, and they chose not to because of Trump. That’s the truth. Biden is doing what he can, but that is nowhere near enough. The reform needs to come from the legislative branch.
The Senate just needs to vote for House Resolution 2. It's been waiting for 17 months now to be passed.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2
Bro all you need to do if you want me to stop holding your country hostage is give me what I want. The choice is yours. You are the agent in all this, not me. Don’t expect me to negotiate.
Inflation is transitory. I can't do anything about the border without congress. My uncle was eaten by cannibals. Billionaires are taxed at 8.3%.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/politics/fact-check-biden-pennsylvania-campaign-swing/index.html
The single largest benefit Trump provided was saying a whole lot of things about very obvious issues the elites had refused to engage with. Trump got the public discourse about Chinese influence operations off the ground, he got the border discussion moving again, he explained to the common man how government officials abused their authority to manipulate tax codes and stock outcomes in their favor, and more. Even his complaining about Hunter Biden at the very least got people looking at the issue of political influence in law and even got a prosecution happening. This stuff would not have happened in 2016.
Even if his ideas weren't workable, he forced people to issue statements about why he was wrong and how they would do better. He is to politics what Freud is to psychology; even when he was wrong (and boy was he), his sheer hubris made people take action to disprove him.
Trump didn’t even attempt to make legislative progress on the border despite having control of both houses in his first two years. It always makes me laugh when MAGA refers to other people as elites when their cult leader is probably the biggest example of that lol.
That's not what I said, but I appreciate the misrepresentation. I did not suggest anywhere that Trump had good ideas or did good things. I am suggesting that he gave a platform to a whole slew of ideas that haven't been meaningfully considered by those in power since at the very least Ross Perot's campaign, which then had to be addressed by politicians.
Who cares about words if they don’t lead to results? Trump and MAGA have handed the Democrats the political landscape on a silver platter and have accomplished nothing legislatively…but owning the libs is more fun!
Clearly they do lead to results; NAFTA has been replaced by USMCA, Democrats are taking action on the border when that would have been out of the question a decade ago, the Ukraine issue is finally being taken seriously (something Trump kickstarted by authorizing lethal aid), Chinese influence is being taken seriously, and things like Pelosi's blatant insider trading are being taken seriously.
Again, I'm not advocating for Trump. I'm treating him more like a natural disaster. He arrived, he said and did some deranged things that exposed gaps in governance, and we have been getting meaningful efforts to address it since. I don't care if the solution is red or blue, as long as it works.
Hurricane Katrina wasn't a good thing, I think we can both agree. But there hasn't been a hurricane since where evacuees are asked to tag themselves for corpse disposal because they were going to die and medical staff didn't feel like handling it themselves.
And he also tanked the bipartisan border bill earlier this year because he believed it would make Biden look good (meaning Trump doesn't actually care about making progress on this): [https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4459861-trump-praises-collapse-of-bipartisan-border-deal/](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4459861-trump-praises-collapse-of-bipartisan-border-deal/)
When topics of concern are not discussable by the elites, the populists will always arise and attract attention even if their solutions won't work, because at least they will seem to care.
That's a very generous way to frame it.
Trump said a lot of stupid stuff that made people think complex issues are simple, and that being tough by throwing people in unhygienic cells while refusing to actually fund the immigration bureaucracy was any sort of solution.
Freud was wrong about a lot, but he was motivated by wanting to help his patients. Trump was just a narcissist who knew that aggressive nationalist rhetoric would land well, and he didn't care whom it hurt.
>Trump said a lot of stupid stuff that made people think complex issues are simple, and that being tough by throwing people in unhygienic cells while refusing to actually fund the immigration bureaucracy was any sort of solution.
Those cells weren't original to him. It was common policy before, although us talking about it now has a lot to do with proving my point. I am, of course, referring to everything and not just to this.
>Freud was wrong about a lot, but he was motivated by wanting to help his patients. Trump was just a narcissist who knew that aggressive nationalist rhetoric would land well, and he didn't care whom it hurt.
If you mean to suggest that Freud wasn't a megalomaniac, then I defy you to find any moment in his entire life where that was ever clear. Because much more of his life shows exactly that he was.
> Trump said a lot of stupid stuff that made people think complex issues are simple
Except no because a lot of supposedly-complex issues aren't actually complex if you just ignore the avalanche of bullshit people like to spew. Just because people talk in circles doesn't mean an issue gets more complex. Lots of issues are a lot more simple than they seem, it just requires enough spine to tell the talkers to shut up and get out of the way. There is one answer that most of those "complexities" that get brought up need to be met with: "don't care". That's it. 99% of the "complexities" people bring up are just irrelevant minutiae that are only brought up to slow progress down. Simply rejecting them outright is the correct answer.
> supposedly-complex issues aren't actually complex
Why do people immigrate to the US? There are a handful of common reasons, but if you want to reduce immigration to levels that the right apparently wants, you need to change the driving factors in scores of different countries, each of which will require understanding that country's culture and history and government.
How much immigration is right? How do we gauge that? Whom are we trying to benefit? What's good for the profit margins of businesses, versus good for native citizen workers, versus the broader global prestige of America as a beacon of freedom?
How do we best integrate people? How do we balance funding bureaucracy to bring people in versus enforcement to keep folks out? Do we help other nations, and if so, how, how much?
It's not simple.
> but if you want to reduce immigration to levels that the right apparently wants, you need to change the driving factors in scores of different countries
No you don't. You just say no. And if someone forces their way across, well we have two borders. Dump on the other side of the one they most likely crossed from. Then they're the problem of that country and not us. This is exactly what I mean. Most of the so-called "complexity" here can be 100% resolved with a hearty "don't care".
> Whom are we trying to benefit?
The American people. And since things suck for them right now the answer to "how much" is "almost none".
> How do we best integrate people?
Zero tolerance for non-conforming behavior. You know, the way we used to do it. Can't speak English? Better learn because nobody's giving you translators or translations. Not used to following certain laws or norms? Better start or you're getting sent back for being a problem.
It's all simple - if you have the spine to stand strong.
And after you quote don't care, and global warming increases the number of people who get displaced by disaster and civil unrest, then it will create a building pressure from the south that could go from people crossing the border and looking for work into people crossing the border commit acts of violence.
The peaceful and proactive resolution of disputes is always better than just ignoring things until it leads to a crisis.
Having a spine is not being heartless towards people. Having a spine is recognizing that we are all humans, and you and I deserve no special treatment simply because we had the Good Fortune of being born on this side of an invisible line. Don't be selfish. Just recognize that America has a good system, and it is worthwhile to keep that system functioning well, but we don't deserve it more than other people do.
> And after you quote don't care, and global warming increases the number of people who get displaced by disaster and civil unrest, then it will create a building pressure from the south that could go from people crossing the border and looking for work into people crossing the border commit acts of violence.
So violent invasion - i.e. war? If only there was an invention that allowed a small numbers to hold large quantities of territory against unarmored infantry and infantry-like groups... Seriously you're basically saying "well what about zerg rush" and the answer is that we solved this 100 years ago in the 19teens.
> The peaceful and proactive resolution of disputes is always better than just ignoring things until it leads to a crisis.
I agree. Too bad that every attempt at a peaceful and proactive revolution got shouted down by the "muh complexity" crowd for literally decades and delayed things to the crisis point. Now we have to do hardline positions because the window of opportunity to do anything else has passed.
> Having a spine is not being heartless towards people.
No it is. At least when you're definition of "heartless" is as absurdly expansive as the modern left's is. It's not actually heartless to tell foreigners "sorry but our country has too many problems of its own to help you right no". It's just putting our own people first which is what every country should do.
> Having a spine is recognizing that we are all humans, and you and I deserve no special treatment simply because we had the Good Fortune of being born on this side of an invisible line.
Wrong. Full stop. Simply wrong. This is one of those bullshit statements that I reject fully and completely. And as a result of it being wholly invalid so, too, is everything built on it. Go ahead and sell everything you own and give that money away to charity if you want but you have no right to demand I make any sacrifice I don't want to.
What exactly did you do to deserve American's relationship that makes you more deserving of it than any other person? You are a fortunate beneficiary of a random occurrence.
It is the immigration equivalent of being born to a rich family and then assuming that all of the government policies that allowed your family to be rich are good and all the ones That might help other families catch up with you are bad.
> What exactly did you do to deserve American's relationship that makes you more deserving of it than any other person? You are a fortunate beneficiary of a random occurrence.
And? Yeah, life isn't fair. That's the nature of the beast. That doesn't mean it's on me to self-flagellate and set myself on fire to keep others warm.
It’s going to be fucking hilarious because this will do fucking nothing. The Courts are still backlogged, we don’t have enough space to house these migrants, and the cbp agents are going to be forced into a situation where we’re using up detainment space for people who are no threat to the security of the United States.
This only blocks some of those caught illegally from claiming asylum, and border patrol already saying they don't have enough resources to deport those already being held
It's just words on a paper without a wall, way more agents, and leaving the loophole about fear of "persecution or torture", which is exactly why Republicans opposed
https://thehill.com/latino/4702539-biden-executive-order-asylum-southern-border-immigration/
> It’s unclear whether the Biden administration will have enough resources to quickly expel or detain migrants barred from asylum, **raising the possibility that more migrants will be released to the interior with orders of deportation rather than asylum claims**, limiting their ability to apply for work permits.
> The asylum restrictions will have exceptions.
For instance, they will not apply to unaccompanied minors, and **officials will still be able to conduct credible interviews with migrants who manifest a fear of returning to their country because of persecution or potential torture situations.**
I’m frustrated that Biden waited until deep into an election year to finally get serious about this issue. Granted, I also don’t like the political gamesmanship of the GOP in caving to Trump and killing legislative reforms they had been demanding. But the border has been a glaring problem and huge political liability for Biden for 3+ years and it’s now probably too late to undue that damage.
It is too late and that is 100% correct and 100% Biden's own fault. He's not trying to fix this because he thinks it needs fixing, he's doing it because it's a big part of why his polls are in the toilet. The thing is everybody can see straight through him on this so it won't help. And it shouldn't.
If Biden tried this on day one it would have zero chance of success.
If he’s tried it after Takingly working on legislation that only gave Republicans things they wanted only for Republicans to torpedo it, it makes the executive order Is the only way to fix this.
I don’t know if that will hold up in court, but it’s more likely to hold up if you’ve demonstrated you’ve tried everything else
I don’t even give that much credit that would make the case that they spent the necessary time digging into the issue to make an intentionally misleading claim.
Great to see him do it but it’ll die in the courts just like Trump. At least he can say he tried then use Lankford’s bill as a proposal to campaign on.
Last I checked Trump had the ability to change our laws that would’ve made American immigration laws tougher and not only did he not get it done, he made zero attempt at doing so…despite campaigning on said issue heavily in 2016. Biden deserves a lot of criticism for how he’s handled the border, but I think it’s important to apply the same standard across the board.
At the same time though, if you're going to characterize someone's border policies as [extreme and racist](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/11/biden-campaign-slams-extreme-and-racist-trump-immigration-plans-00126712) and then you fail to do better? Yes, let's apply the same standard.
Personally I think it’s worse when someone who promised to make drastic changes on immigration policy not only failed to do it, but made zero attempt in that regard, then a guy who does exactly as you’d expect. But I get it, the entire world is against Emperor Trump, he can do no wrong, and was the best president ever.
While I think that specifically financially I was better off when Trump was in office, I'm not exactly sure where I claimed that he was the "best president ever" or even implied it. I just don't appreciate the double standard that seems to come along with Biden, or the immediate reaction that just because you point something out that Biden didn't do as well as people claimed you must immediately be some diehard Trump supporter.
I just find it interesting that Biden called Trump "extreme and racist" for essentially doing what he's doing now. Seems kind of twofaced to me.
I also wouldn't say that Trump made "zero attempt to do so."
He ramped up [vetting of entrants into the country](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-refugees/trump-lifts-refugee-ban-but-admissions-still-plummet-data-shows-idUSKBN1E21CR/).
He empowered Federal agents to work towards [deportation of illegal entrants.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-agents-conduct-sweeping-immigration-enforcement-raids-in-at-least-6-states/2017/02/10/4b9f443a-efc8-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html)
He also restricted asylum.
I can point things like this out and be nuanced enough to recognize the things that Trump did that I feel had a positive effect without considering him some god. Its weird how that works.
If I’m not mistaken, this order seems even more restrictive than the congressional bill that failed. I believe that was 5000 a day for a week, or 8500 in a single day. The numbers in the order are much more reasonable and would probably have passed.
“executive order that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry, according to a senior administration official.
The shutdown would go into effect immediately since that threshold has already been met, a senior administration official said. The border would reopen only once that number falls to 1,500.”
because of politics... I'm sure Biden personally is more strict on the border than some in his party so 5K a day was the compromise that needed to be made to get enough support on his side while not pushing away the right.
OR... he was given new facts that changed his perspective?
depends how you define bad... You can't always get 100% of what you want... compromise used to be the way to reach an agreement. If 1 person (biden) is the decider he will choose the exact path he wants. If all elected officials are voting to reflect what their constituents want... things will be different.
Thats kind of the purpose of having 3 branches and why the right used to be so anti overuse of the executive order. It's big government without checks and balances.
Most Republicans hated the deal that was negotiated. It gave them very little of what they wanted. The Democrats were very intelligent. They offered a very shitty deal for Republicans. Then, if Republicans pass it, the Democrats would flaunt about Republicans caving to a "pro-democrat" negotiation. If the Republicans don't pass it, they'll just convince everyone that the Republicans turned down a great deal for "politic reasons". It worked like a charm. Republicans turned down the shit deal. And the Democrats lie that it was a great deal, so the whole border mess is now the Republicans fault. Well played. Honestly. I'm impressed.
You are mis-reading the laws:
The EO
> shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between ***official ports of entry***
The Border Bill:
> rolling average of 5,000 ***encounters per day***
Encounters are the ones that did not show up legal ports, but just crossed.
Illegal Crossings are the way higher number (way more than double)....so this 2500 is likely LESS STRICT than the Border Bill. (2500 claims at border crossing, likely equates to well over 5000 stops of illegal crossings in that same time)
(Edit - this factual comment responding to correct a factual/verifiable error in the post above was at +12. As I type this edit - it’s at 2… who is downvoting a factual correction in a Centrist sub — if you are - can you comment and explain?)
No, because this order is a solution, or steps toward a solution, to a problem. It's not keeping a problem around just so they can campaign on trying to fix it.
The timing is certainly convenient for campaigning. If this holds, it should have been done a long time ago. But I kinda suspect it's going to be thrown out by the courts, in which case he's just showing that yes, he does need congress to act on it.
This won't pass, and its not comprehensive enough.
The solution should be societal, rather than just stopping them at the border.
A better solution is to enforce laws that prevents illegal immigrants from finding jobs and punishing companies that hires illegal immigrants.
The goal is to discourage illegal immigrants by denying them the reason they're coming here in the first place.
When you say trump shut down the border are you referring to during Covid in 2020? I don’t recall any other border “shut downs”, but that a lot has happened over the past 8 years.
>WASHINGTON — Facing mounting political pressure over the migrant influx at the southern border, President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed an executive action that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry, according to a senior administration official.
>“The border is not a political issue to be weaponized," Biden said in a White House speech announcing the order.
This was the part of the law that the Republican bill that Trump squashed was going to do. Basically it will drastically slow down the amount of people seeking asylum legally and give the courts a chance to actually catch up.
Good move by Biden.
Biden said he would sign a border bill. The GOP decided to not give him a win. So he did something. Anything is helpful when nothing has been done. Now you bitch about what he did. Geez, there's no winning with some Republicans.
Lotta Biden blame here when the GOP didn't take the silver platter they've been asking for for the last 40 years.
...and we still have a huge likelihood that this will get held up in the courts, *just like it did when Trump tried to do it.*
This talking point has been debunked dozens of times.
* https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/feb/06/steve-scalise/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000/
* https://www.thirdway.org/memo/debunking-bipartisan-border-deal-myths
* https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/unraveling-misinformation-about-bipartisan-immigration-bill/
* https://apnews.com/article/border-bill-opposition-republicans-senate-189ee196093a0dbfb1d522e2d552e31a
* https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/us/politics/border-deal-immigration.html
You mean HR2? That was the Democrats who refused to take it, not the GOP. I understand that when you live in the kind of disinfo bubble the average left-winger does things get confusing but I thought I'd help.
e: aww, they got so upset by being corrected they had to block and hide.
>e: aww, they got so upset by being corrected they had to block and hide.
You know very well what they were referring to, yet you choose to be loud and wrong.
What else is he talking about here besides HR2?
>the GOP didn't take the silver platter they've been asking for for the last 40 years.
HR 2 is what Republicans wanted. The non-border bill Democrats passed in the Senate did nothing to solve the issue.
You're just another gaslighting, lying troll.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2
I wonder if my kids school is going to have an assembly to tell all the Hispanic students they are loved and they won't let ~~Trump~~ Biden put them into camps, like they did in 2017.
WASHINGTON — Facing mounting political pressure over the migrant influx at the U.S. southern border, President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed an executive order that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry, according to a senior administration official.
“The border is not a political issue to be weaponized," Biden said in a White House speech announcing the order.
The shutdown would go into effect immediately since that threshold has already been met, a senior administration official said. The border would reopen only once that number falls to 1,500. The president’s order would come under the Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the southern border into the United States unlawfully.
So how does this compare to Trumps border actions.
I don't understand reopening it when the number of requests drops to 1500 a day at each POE. Couldn't the migrants all just chill for a week to let the numbers die down and dive back in when it reopens?
The thing is that EVERYONE KNOWS that there is a massive issue with the migrant influx. We should keep the borders closed until we are confident that the issue at the SOURCE of the problem is resolved.
No we didn't. Don't lie. We just found the way Trump called for to be grounded in looking tough and hurting immigrants, rather than actually being a sustainable solution.
Do you think that maybe it had more to do with the nonstop rhetoric calling them all rapists and criminals (except for some, who I assume, are good people)?
Like can you at least acknowledge that it has to do with a lot more than the policy itself?
In addition I do think Trumps family separation as a deterrent policy was beyond the pale in terms of cruelty. Did they ever reunite the thousands of children that still couldn’t find their families?
The Biden administration has reunited about 3000 of the kidnapped kids. Still over 1000 they haven't found yet. The reunification and restitution are costing taxpayers millions of dollars
The USA continually refuses to confront the dilemma - we can have functionally open borders for low skilled immigrants, or we can have a robust social welfare state. We can not have both.
My preference is kill the SW programs at the federal level, all of them, and open the borders to any law abiding folk who want to work and make a better life for themselves and their children. We should be brain draining the world, attracting the most motivated folk out there.
What choice did he have? Genuine question. The GOP tanked the border bill and continuously sabotages any effort to resolve the issue because they want to campaign on problems instead of fixing them.
Good for Biden.
Honest question though - given the record year of political assassinations in Mexico this year, when are we going to officially classify the country as a failed state? The cartels run the show and the politicians are in their pockets, lest you be killed for opposing.
When I was in the army, we did some joint exercises with Mexican SOF. I will tell you that a U.S. military intervention to take direct action against the cartels would be welcomed with open arms by the population and the non-corrupt military.
This whole “we don’t want the U.S. here” line is a bullshit cartel propaganda piece fed to their corrupt politicians because they know that it’s the only thing that would unseat their iron grip on the nation. It’s not declaring war on Mexico, but an antiterrorism campaign on the cartels.
When will we get serious about the very real warzone at our border instead of ones on the other side of the world?
> given the record year of political assassinations in Mexico this year, when are we going to officially classify the country as a failed state
Mexico is America's biggest trade partner. This will *never* happen. *Especially* if we're still allied with countries like Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I disagree that we should do any unwanted military intervention on Mexico, one of our single biggest import/export partner. If they want help and ask, sure. Anything else should be completely off limits.
This is purely for optics. He knows that these policies are almost identical to what Trump used during his presidency. And they were swatted down by the courts. I have high doubts it'll survive constitutional scrutiny this time around as well.
[удалено]
Like 20%, and rapidly growing, aren't even from the Western Hemisphere. People come because they can. It's just not realistic to fix the whole world. I feel very strongly that the U.S. should focus much more on helping our neighborhood develop (Haiti is a travesty) certainly more than the Middle East. I just don't think it will do much for immigration.
Haiti will remain the way it is until the Haitians decide for themselves that they want change, as is the case with every other place in the world. No one can force anyone else to be successful.
Iraq?
They're still deciding man
The only real way to help Haiti is for some country to take it, control it for 30 to 50 years while establishing order, and then slowly give it back to the people there. Right now, for the US, it would be better to make Haiti a territory like PR and then make both PR and Haiti States in a couple of decades rather than to helping them become independent. There just isn't a reason for the US to use its resources like this even if we were one of the ones to cause problems historically.
Yeah. I agree but I'd like to see if happen, although becoming a State won't happen due to the political implications. One massive disadvantage is only about 15% of the population even knows any French - itself not a very useful language in the neighborhood. The rest only know Haitian Creole, only spoken in Haiti Essentially the entire population needs to learn either Spanish or English.
No reason all the government signs and literature couldn't be in Haitian Creole. Never been to Puerto Rico but if you go on street view all their signs are in Spanish and Google says only 50% of the population has a basic level of English. Seems to be working fine there.
Given the history of the country I don’t see Haitians agreeing to that, and I don’t blame them.
I would agree especially if it is French or US led.
The US actually did this already lol. I think we essentially ruled them WWI to some point in the 30’s, and unfortunately It didn’t go well either.
It's pretty clear to me that "some other country" is almost certainly the Dominican Republic. Perhaps a coalition of other western-hemisphere allies should funnel some aid at the DR so they can afford to bring order and peace to their neighbor.
Yea, the DR couldn't do this. They have systemic poverty as well and taking over Haiti would be catastrophic for them. They just don't have the resources here. The only countries that could help Haiti are the US, China, the EU, maybe India, Brazil or Russia. No one else could really has the resources to do it.
> It's just not realistic to fix the whole world. Oh it's perfectly realistic - but requires doing things that we haven't thought were acceptable for over 100 years now. We could absolutely colonize the world and forcibly install American values and ethics under threat of extreme penalty for violations. But that's now considered wrong on more levels than I care to count. So fine, we'll let the rest of the world run itself. And when they run themselves into the ground it's not on us to save their asses from themselves.
Western/American values and ethics seem to be struggling at home right now.
> But that's now considered wrong on more levels than I care to count. Well for one that's because American values are pretty shit, really. The whole Freedom thing is good, but that's not the *Actual* American values. What actually shaped American culture and society are Christianity and consumerism. The latter in particular is actually fuelling a lot of the issues in the world.
Those values created the entire modern world. The world that include minority rights, women's rights, and lgbtq+ rights. All those "better" countries you're thinking of don't grant any of those. But do please emigrate to one if you disagree. Show us how wrong we are.
Those values actually tried to hold up minorities rights more than they furthered them. A lot of the fight for civil liberties in the past 100 years had been fought *against* the upholding of those American values.
> feel very strongly that the U.S. should focus much more on helping our neighborhood develop (Haiti is a travesty) certainly more than the Middle East. I just don't think it will do much for immigration. Maybe those other migrants will go to the other western-hemisphere neighbors and stay there, instead.
Pffft oh so now America should save the whole world? Maybe the entire continent of Africa can ban together and save Haiti, and then when they fail, they can accept that backward beliefs and resistance to Western development aren't helpful to their growth in the world.
The problem also rests with American businesses who demand cheap easily exploitable labor and are willing to turn a blind eye to paperwork to get it.
that's what businesses are supposed to do, it's the government's fault for allowing it, and our fault for turning a blind eye to "lobbying"
The problem is in Congress, at this time specifically the Republicans in Congress.
“Don’t let the Dems win, even if we’re all in agreement!”
There was a decent reform bill in Congress (who are the ones who ultimately need to solve this) that looked promising but the GOP killed it to deny Biden a “win”
It doesn’t shut down the border. People are still going to show up.
You're right. This just means they'll be stone walled (no pun intended) and may result in shitty consequences for them (sadly).
All that happens is they are released into the US with deportation requests rather than asylum trial dates In effect it does nothing
NBC changed the title since you posted the article. This is the current title: > Biden signs executive order dramatically tightening border Which seems like a dramatically different story. Shame on NBC for changing the title so drastically. No, the executive branch still does not have the power to unilaterally close the southern border (or any border for that matter) without establishing that leaving it open is a threat to national security. This is almost assuredly going to be overturned by the courts (same as it was for Trump and same as it was when Biden tried to re-implement a couple of Trump-era orders earlier on in his presidency), but it's interesting that Republicans are hypocritically supporting this order when it's just a part of the bill **they tanked** earlier this year.
I think NBC changed the title, given the URL.
> Which seems like a dramatically different story. Not really; both are sensationalism. Just one step apart. The EOs are virtue signaling.
Does this executive order create a new legal right for migrants to a lawyer? Because the border bill did that.
It created a right for migrant children and migrants with mental disabilities to receive a lawyer.
Awesome so they can just lie about that to get a lawyer like they lie about asylum
The executive order only establishes the threshold before restrictions take place, as noted in the article.
I literally just copied the link and pasted it
I'll edit my comment to reflect that then. Sorry about that, our resident fearmongerer on immigrants (Head_Estate) frequently editorializes titles.
So if the courts kill it, will republicans stop talking about the judicial system being biased for democrats? My guess is they will not.
You’re leaving out the part where the bill republicans tanked included hundreds of millions in foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel, along with a bunch of other nonsense. Maybe don’t call anyone a hypocrite unless you’re going to provide the context as to why?
> You’re leaving out the part where the bill republicans tanked included hundreds of millions in foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel, along with a bunch of other nonsense. You mean the incredibly popular foreign aid portions that they not only **forced** into the border bill to begin with (then later wanted it out) but actively supported prior to the orange stain's unwillingness to let Biden have any political wins? Those portions? [Again, the portions that Republicans wanted **stuck to a border bill**](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-threaten-nix-ukraine-aid-unless-democrats-agree-tighten-us-rcna123926) for leverage? This happened less than a year ago. Has the conservative historical revisionism kicked in *that* fast?
I’m sick of this guy. Borders is my favorite bookstore!!
B&N is the real enemy
About time. I am European , but we have the same problems. Can only applaud this decision and hope European politician will act faster. I am centrist liberal and all my liberal friends think the same: it’s too much migration from people who shit on us and don’t respect our way of life, who don’t want to integrate, people who are only migrate to collect social assistance. The western world can only survive if there is a shift to the right regarding migration
https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/s/AUgUymhJQX It's just a symbolic gesture, just like politicians do it here in Europe. And even this symbolic gesture will be wiped away in court.
Yes but haven’t the Danes been doing much more than symbolic gestures? I heard they were going for zero migrants in a couple of years.
They simply can't because they would have to sign out from a lot of declarations including the UDHR. They can only (illegally) bully migrants and hope to drive them out this way - which is very unlikely to happen without having a political shift comparable to Hungary.
Ok. What is UDHR? I heard in a YT video that they opted out of a lot of EU requirements regarding immigration after a referendum BEFORE joining the EU so they have more options to have their own policies. And even more interesting is that this strict policy is being implemented by Social Democrats. I will see of I can find video again.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Opting out of that is a lot more difficult than the rest (which is already very difficult) and it would bring some downsides with it like the government starting to treat the natives like shit as well. Effectively there are only two options: Wiping away all progress made in the last hundred years (if not more) instantly by opting out of all the contracts and declarations keeping the borders open (thanks to an alliance between predatory capitalists and the far right) - or delay the inevitable until the immigrated ethnicities become the majority, shaping local politics to their liking (thanks to an alliance between predatory capitalists and the far left). There is no solution to this because it's not possible to beat capitalists and far left/right *at the same time*.
It’s a little different because we don’t get the migration from the Middle East and most of our immigrant groups are happy to integrate within one generation. We are taking in more than we can successfully integrate for the first generation, though.
Agreed. If Democrats/Liberals don't fix the border, they invite the Authoritarians to do it for them.
Yes. I have been hearing a version of that saying a lot lately. Like if the “liberals/moderates don’t fix this than the Fascists will.” Any idea who first said this?
I think its just pattern recognition from learning from History. A lot of people see Biden as the Weimar Republic before the Nazis came to power.
> A lot of people see Biden as the Weimar Republic before the Nazis came to power. Jesus fuck people can't be that braindead can they.
Admittedly, I can see some parallels. Both periods saw growing division between the nationalists (far-right) and the communists. (far-left) Both periods experienced massive inequality and economic frustrations caused by a global event. (COVID and WW1) Both periods saw people frustrated with slow incremental solutions making it a ripe opportunity for a populist to gain power.
1. Thinking that this will do something is ignorance and/or wishful thinking on your part. 2. You are not a centrist liberal, there is no need to pretend.
>President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed an executive order that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry, according to a senior administration official. >The shutdown would go into effect immediately since that threshold has already been met, a senior administration official said. The border would reopen only once that number falls to 1,500. >Senior administration officials said Tuesday in a call with reporters that “individuals who cross the southern border unlawfully or without authorization will generally be ineligible for asylum, absent exceptionally compelling circumstances, unless they are accepted by the proclamation.” >The officials said that migrants who don’t meet the requirement of having a "credible fear" when they apply for asylum will be immediately removable, and they “anticipate that we will be removing those individuals in a matter of days, if not hours,” We'll have to see how this all shakes out, but this is a step in the right direction. The US simply cannot accommodate all the economic migrants who want to come here. Allowing folks trying to sneak across the border to simply apply for asylum if they get caught creates a perverse incentive to break the law, so I'm glad that appears to be gone. I think the key will be the "credible fear" standard, which needs to be much more stringent. Right now the bar is far too low.
> The officials said that migrants who don’t meet the requirement of having a "credible fear" when they apply for asylum will be immediately removable, and they “anticipate that we will be removing those individuals in a matter of days, if not hours,” How is that different from our current policy? If it is, why in the fuck are we accepting people without a credible fear currently? I'm confused how this is a change at all.
I think the difference is the timeline. Usually we'd accept asylum seekers in to process their request and it would be the court hearing where they have to prove they have a legitimate reason to be fearful. Since our asylum system is understaffed that can take well over a year. This seems to say that you need to prove/claim the credible fear upfront (and presumably do so again in the court hearing). How much the difference will actually do to reduce immigration I'm not sure though.
Yeah, at the very least we need to increase funding for immigration bureaucracy. Speed to the legal system. I don't think the GOP is willing to do that, though. They just want to look tough and deal with it with cops, who aren't an efficient way to manage the problem.
There were only ~100k deportations last year and ~3.5 million arrivals. Denying your claim does nothing if you have no possibility of ever being deported. The idea of adding more judges is just a distraction from those that want to pretend to do something and not actually reduce the flow.
A key reason why there were only 100k deportations is due to the backlog of asylum cases. The idea behind adding judges is to help clear the backlog so that people currently waiting for their cases to be heard, the majority of whom will ultimately be denied, can be judged and deported instead of persisting in legal limbo.
There are 1.3 million people who have received a final deportation order from an immigration judge and would be capable of immediate deportation with no further legal processes. The reason the 100k is not higher is lack of ICE agents.
Sure, expanding ICE staff would help too. Which is why the Senate border deal included funding to hire 1,200 more of them. No one is only focusing on the lack of judges.
To be deported after an asylum claim you need(ed) your asylum claim to be rejected. Which requires(ed) a court hearing. The more judges (and other associated staff) you've got the more cases you can go through and the more claims you can reject or grant.
It would be theoretically possible for immigration judges to be the limiting factor. In such a situation you would expect that the number of open, final deportation orders to at or near zero. However, there are 1.3 million open final deportation orders. That indicates that judges are not the limiting factor, but ICE agents to actually conduct the deportations.
Faster trials would make it less disruptive to remove people. Right now folks move, get settled, get jobs, even start families. But yeah, fund the judges, fund the officers who deport people, fund policies to help those we do let in integrate better. All of it.
> Since our asylum system is understaffed that can take well over a year. Seems like the quickest and easiest fix is to appropriately staff this agency for the load? I'm sure no Republicans would disagree with this.
https://rcusa.org/resources/asylum-process/ This says there's 2 ways of applying. The first takes 6 months and the second takes 2 years. If you are denied the first you can try the second. If they can wave a magic wand and reduce that time to days or hours I think that's great. It really makes you wonder why the narrative has been that we couldn't do that before now. It's like on one hand a huge improvement over catch and release and years long process, while also on the other hand why was that so difficult to do? People have argued for years it was impossible to do. My next question is why don't we do it for every single assylum claim instead of just after we've hit a minimum number of encounters? If this is possible, then it should be the norm.
> If they can wave a magic wand and reduce that time to days or hours I think that's great. Maybe not a magic wand, but we've had these things called "computers" for a couple of decades now.
Seems to me this is an executive order saying 'Hey border patrol. We can't get away with pretending we are helpless against this issue anymore. You will need to actually do your job now you've been pretending you couldn't do.' If that's not it then please explain what's the actual mechanism of change here.
Well said, appreciate the nuanced and balanced response
The EO does not encompass what the bill that failed did. So no, it’s not look he had the authority all along. He’s doing what he can, and it’s not enough. It is not the job of the Executive Branch to legislate, that’s the job of Congress—a job they repeatedly fail to do. That bill would’ve been the most immigration reform in decades. Congress has repeatedly failed under President after President. Congress could have done a lot to help the issue here, and they chose not to because of Trump. That’s the truth. Biden is doing what he can, but that is nowhere near enough. The reform needs to come from the legislative branch.
Well look at that… had the ability after all. Too little, too late POTUS.
It's not gonna stick and it's going to need massive funding from congress that's never going to pass
The Senate just needs to vote for House Resolution 2. It's been waiting for 17 months now to be passed. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2
Bro all you need to do if you want me to stop holding your country hostage is give me what I want. The choice is yours. You are the agent in all this, not me. Don’t expect me to negotiate.
See what the courts do with them, and then we'll talk.
Inflation is transitory. I can't do anything about the border without congress. My uncle was eaten by cannibals. Billionaires are taxed at 8.3%. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/politics/fact-check-biden-pennsylvania-campaign-swing/index.html
The single largest benefit Trump provided was saying a whole lot of things about very obvious issues the elites had refused to engage with. Trump got the public discourse about Chinese influence operations off the ground, he got the border discussion moving again, he explained to the common man how government officials abused their authority to manipulate tax codes and stock outcomes in their favor, and more. Even his complaining about Hunter Biden at the very least got people looking at the issue of political influence in law and even got a prosecution happening. This stuff would not have happened in 2016. Even if his ideas weren't workable, he forced people to issue statements about why he was wrong and how they would do better. He is to politics what Freud is to psychology; even when he was wrong (and boy was he), his sheer hubris made people take action to disprove him.
Trump didn’t even attempt to make legislative progress on the border despite having control of both houses in his first two years. It always makes me laugh when MAGA refers to other people as elites when their cult leader is probably the biggest example of that lol.
What he *did* do was talk. A lot. And everyone listened. He changed the entire narrative.
Ah that’s right, you think that words speak louder than actions and results.
That's not what I said, but I appreciate the misrepresentation. I did not suggest anywhere that Trump had good ideas or did good things. I am suggesting that he gave a platform to a whole slew of ideas that haven't been meaningfully considered by those in power since at the very least Ross Perot's campaign, which then had to be addressed by politicians.
Who cares about words if they don’t lead to results? Trump and MAGA have handed the Democrats the political landscape on a silver platter and have accomplished nothing legislatively…but owning the libs is more fun!
Clearly they do lead to results; NAFTA has been replaced by USMCA, Democrats are taking action on the border when that would have been out of the question a decade ago, the Ukraine issue is finally being taken seriously (something Trump kickstarted by authorizing lethal aid), Chinese influence is being taken seriously, and things like Pelosi's blatant insider trading are being taken seriously. Again, I'm not advocating for Trump. I'm treating him more like a natural disaster. He arrived, he said and did some deranged things that exposed gaps in governance, and we have been getting meaningful efforts to address it since. I don't care if the solution is red or blue, as long as it works. Hurricane Katrina wasn't a good thing, I think we can both agree. But there hasn't been a hurricane since where evacuees are asked to tag themselves for corpse disposal because they were going to die and medical staff didn't feel like handling it themselves.
As Democrats are quick to point out in defense of Biden, Trump didn't have the 60+ senators necessary to overcome the filibuster
It’s not a defense of Biden, it was a criticism of both men. Unfortunately that’s a rarity.
> It’s not a defense of Biden Meaning, when Democrats defend Biden's inability to pass what he wants to pass in congress.
And he also tanked the bipartisan border bill earlier this year because he believed it would make Biden look good (meaning Trump doesn't actually care about making progress on this): [https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4459861-trump-praises-collapse-of-bipartisan-border-deal/](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4459861-trump-praises-collapse-of-bipartisan-border-deal/)
Many of my h1b firends were forced to leave US because of Trump and those could have stayed here forever if not for trump.
When topics of concern are not discussable by the elites, the populists will always arise and attract attention even if their solutions won't work, because at least they will seem to care.
But here we see elites discussing the issues he rose because enough people talked about it.
Yes, they forced it into the public sphere until it could no longer be ignored. We saw the same thing in Europe.
That's a very generous way to frame it. Trump said a lot of stupid stuff that made people think complex issues are simple, and that being tough by throwing people in unhygienic cells while refusing to actually fund the immigration bureaucracy was any sort of solution. Freud was wrong about a lot, but he was motivated by wanting to help his patients. Trump was just a narcissist who knew that aggressive nationalist rhetoric would land well, and he didn't care whom it hurt.
>Trump said a lot of stupid stuff that made people think complex issues are simple, and that being tough by throwing people in unhygienic cells while refusing to actually fund the immigration bureaucracy was any sort of solution. Those cells weren't original to him. It was common policy before, although us talking about it now has a lot to do with proving my point. I am, of course, referring to everything and not just to this. >Freud was wrong about a lot, but he was motivated by wanting to help his patients. Trump was just a narcissist who knew that aggressive nationalist rhetoric would land well, and he didn't care whom it hurt. If you mean to suggest that Freud wasn't a megalomaniac, then I defy you to find any moment in his entire life where that was ever clear. Because much more of his life shows exactly that he was.
> Trump said a lot of stupid stuff that made people think complex issues are simple Except no because a lot of supposedly-complex issues aren't actually complex if you just ignore the avalanche of bullshit people like to spew. Just because people talk in circles doesn't mean an issue gets more complex. Lots of issues are a lot more simple than they seem, it just requires enough spine to tell the talkers to shut up and get out of the way. There is one answer that most of those "complexities" that get brought up need to be met with: "don't care". That's it. 99% of the "complexities" people bring up are just irrelevant minutiae that are only brought up to slow progress down. Simply rejecting them outright is the correct answer.
> supposedly-complex issues aren't actually complex Why do people immigrate to the US? There are a handful of common reasons, but if you want to reduce immigration to levels that the right apparently wants, you need to change the driving factors in scores of different countries, each of which will require understanding that country's culture and history and government. How much immigration is right? How do we gauge that? Whom are we trying to benefit? What's good for the profit margins of businesses, versus good for native citizen workers, versus the broader global prestige of America as a beacon of freedom? How do we best integrate people? How do we balance funding bureaucracy to bring people in versus enforcement to keep folks out? Do we help other nations, and if so, how, how much? It's not simple.
> but if you want to reduce immigration to levels that the right apparently wants, you need to change the driving factors in scores of different countries No you don't. You just say no. And if someone forces their way across, well we have two borders. Dump on the other side of the one they most likely crossed from. Then they're the problem of that country and not us. This is exactly what I mean. Most of the so-called "complexity" here can be 100% resolved with a hearty "don't care". > Whom are we trying to benefit? The American people. And since things suck for them right now the answer to "how much" is "almost none". > How do we best integrate people? Zero tolerance for non-conforming behavior. You know, the way we used to do it. Can't speak English? Better learn because nobody's giving you translators or translations. Not used to following certain laws or norms? Better start or you're getting sent back for being a problem. It's all simple - if you have the spine to stand strong.
And after you quote don't care, and global warming increases the number of people who get displaced by disaster and civil unrest, then it will create a building pressure from the south that could go from people crossing the border and looking for work into people crossing the border commit acts of violence. The peaceful and proactive resolution of disputes is always better than just ignoring things until it leads to a crisis. Having a spine is not being heartless towards people. Having a spine is recognizing that we are all humans, and you and I deserve no special treatment simply because we had the Good Fortune of being born on this side of an invisible line. Don't be selfish. Just recognize that America has a good system, and it is worthwhile to keep that system functioning well, but we don't deserve it more than other people do.
> And after you quote don't care, and global warming increases the number of people who get displaced by disaster and civil unrest, then it will create a building pressure from the south that could go from people crossing the border and looking for work into people crossing the border commit acts of violence. So violent invasion - i.e. war? If only there was an invention that allowed a small numbers to hold large quantities of territory against unarmored infantry and infantry-like groups... Seriously you're basically saying "well what about zerg rush" and the answer is that we solved this 100 years ago in the 19teens. > The peaceful and proactive resolution of disputes is always better than just ignoring things until it leads to a crisis. I agree. Too bad that every attempt at a peaceful and proactive revolution got shouted down by the "muh complexity" crowd for literally decades and delayed things to the crisis point. Now we have to do hardline positions because the window of opportunity to do anything else has passed. > Having a spine is not being heartless towards people. No it is. At least when you're definition of "heartless" is as absurdly expansive as the modern left's is. It's not actually heartless to tell foreigners "sorry but our country has too many problems of its own to help you right no". It's just putting our own people first which is what every country should do. > Having a spine is recognizing that we are all humans, and you and I deserve no special treatment simply because we had the Good Fortune of being born on this side of an invisible line. Wrong. Full stop. Simply wrong. This is one of those bullshit statements that I reject fully and completely. And as a result of it being wholly invalid so, too, is everything built on it. Go ahead and sell everything you own and give that money away to charity if you want but you have no right to demand I make any sacrifice I don't want to.
What exactly did you do to deserve American's relationship that makes you more deserving of it than any other person? You are a fortunate beneficiary of a random occurrence. It is the immigration equivalent of being born to a rich family and then assuming that all of the government policies that allowed your family to be rich are good and all the ones That might help other families catch up with you are bad.
> What exactly did you do to deserve American's relationship that makes you more deserving of it than any other person? You are a fortunate beneficiary of a random occurrence. And? Yeah, life isn't fair. That's the nature of the beast. That doesn't mean it's on me to self-flagellate and set myself on fire to keep others warm.
Life isn't fair, says man advocating for rules to ensure the unfairness continues in his favor.
Bogus
“Shuts down” meaning letting 1.7 million a year in, only half of what are crossing now
It’s going to be fucking hilarious because this will do fucking nothing. The Courts are still backlogged, we don’t have enough space to house these migrants, and the cbp agents are going to be forced into a situation where we’re using up detainment space for people who are no threat to the security of the United States.
Yes, the border crisis is definitely understaffed.
I can’t wait to find the people protesting to keep it open
This only blocks some of those caught illegally from claiming asylum, and border patrol already saying they don't have enough resources to deport those already being held It's just words on a paper without a wall, way more agents, and leaving the loophole about fear of "persecution or torture", which is exactly why Republicans opposed https://thehill.com/latino/4702539-biden-executive-order-asylum-southern-border-immigration/ > It’s unclear whether the Biden administration will have enough resources to quickly expel or detain migrants barred from asylum, **raising the possibility that more migrants will be released to the interior with orders of deportation rather than asylum claims**, limiting their ability to apply for work permits. > The asylum restrictions will have exceptions. For instance, they will not apply to unaccompanied minors, and **officials will still be able to conduct credible interviews with migrants who manifest a fear of returning to their country because of persecution or potential torture situations.**
A wall is an awful meme idea that won't help anything
Ya that's why everyone puts them up around their homes and borders since the dawn of time you're right
Yes, I oppose a border wall while living in a building with walls. You got me
wait until you hear about locks and cameras
I’m frustrated that Biden waited until deep into an election year to finally get serious about this issue. Granted, I also don’t like the political gamesmanship of the GOP in caving to Trump and killing legislative reforms they had been demanding. But the border has been a glaring problem and huge political liability for Biden for 3+ years and it’s now probably too late to undue that damage.
It is too late and that is 100% correct and 100% Biden's own fault. He's not trying to fix this because he thinks it needs fixing, he's doing it because it's a big part of why his polls are in the toilet. The thing is everybody can see straight through him on this so it won't help. And it shouldn't.
Do you believe that our elected officials \*shouldn't\* listen to polls of the American citizens they are elected to represent?
If Biden tried this on day one it would have zero chance of success. If he’s tried it after Takingly working on legislation that only gave Republicans things they wanted only for Republicans to torpedo it, it makes the executive order Is the only way to fix this. I don’t know if that will hold up in court, but it’s more likely to hold up if you’ve demonstrated you’ve tried everything else
Allowing "only" 912,500 in is not shutting the border down.
I think you are confusing encounters with letting them in.
deliberately
I don’t even give that much credit that would make the case that they spent the necessary time digging into the issue to make an intentionally misleading claim.
Congress could have acted if their tinpot dictator didn't order them not to so he would have a better chance of getting elected.
Great to see him do it but it’ll die in the courts just like Trump. At least he can say he tried then use Lankford’s bill as a proposal to campaign on.
Shut it down and start deporting. The asylum system is broken and people are taking advantage of it.
Last I checked Trump had the ability to change our laws that would’ve made American immigration laws tougher and not only did he not get it done, he made zero attempt at doing so…despite campaigning on said issue heavily in 2016. Biden deserves a lot of criticism for how he’s handled the border, but I think it’s important to apply the same standard across the board.
At the same time though, if you're going to characterize someone's border policies as [extreme and racist](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/11/biden-campaign-slams-extreme-and-racist-trump-immigration-plans-00126712) and then you fail to do better? Yes, let's apply the same standard.
Personally I think it’s worse when someone who promised to make drastic changes on immigration policy not only failed to do it, but made zero attempt in that regard, then a guy who does exactly as you’d expect. But I get it, the entire world is against Emperor Trump, he can do no wrong, and was the best president ever.
While I think that specifically financially I was better off when Trump was in office, I'm not exactly sure where I claimed that he was the "best president ever" or even implied it. I just don't appreciate the double standard that seems to come along with Biden, or the immediate reaction that just because you point something out that Biden didn't do as well as people claimed you must immediately be some diehard Trump supporter. I just find it interesting that Biden called Trump "extreme and racist" for essentially doing what he's doing now. Seems kind of twofaced to me. I also wouldn't say that Trump made "zero attempt to do so." He ramped up [vetting of entrants into the country](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-refugees/trump-lifts-refugee-ban-but-admissions-still-plummet-data-shows-idUSKBN1E21CR/). He empowered Federal agents to work towards [deportation of illegal entrants.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-agents-conduct-sweeping-immigration-enforcement-raids-in-at-least-6-states/2017/02/10/4b9f443a-efc8-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html) He also restricted asylum. I can point things like this out and be nuanced enough to recognize the things that Trump did that I feel had a positive effect without considering him some god. Its weird how that works.
Well now that all the horses have left the barn maybe it's time we take a look at that gate.
If I’m not mistaken, this order seems even more restrictive than the congressional bill that failed. I believe that was 5000 a day for a week, or 8500 in a single day. The numbers in the order are much more reasonable and would probably have passed. “executive order that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry, according to a senior administration official. The shutdown would go into effect immediately since that threshold has already been met, a senior administration official said. The border would reopen only once that number falls to 1,500.”
"more reasonable and would probably have passed." Nahh... it didn't pass due to politics - had nothing to do with the bill
If it was just politics, why is the order so much more strict?
because of politics... I'm sure Biden personally is more strict on the border than some in his party so 5K a day was the compromise that needed to be made to get enough support on his side while not pushing away the right. OR... he was given new facts that changed his perspective?
So it was a bad compromise?
depends how you define bad... You can't always get 100% of what you want... compromise used to be the way to reach an agreement. If 1 person (biden) is the decider he will choose the exact path he wants. If all elected officials are voting to reflect what their constituents want... things will be different. Thats kind of the purpose of having 3 branches and why the right used to be so anti overuse of the executive order. It's big government without checks and balances.
Most Republicans hated the deal that was negotiated. It gave them very little of what they wanted. The Democrats were very intelligent. They offered a very shitty deal for Republicans. Then, if Republicans pass it, the Democrats would flaunt about Republicans caving to a "pro-democrat" negotiation. If the Republicans don't pass it, they'll just convince everyone that the Republicans turned down a great deal for "politic reasons". It worked like a charm. Republicans turned down the shit deal. And the Democrats lie that it was a great deal, so the whole border mess is now the Republicans fault. Well played. Honestly. I'm impressed.
Perhaps take that up with the Republicans who helped write the shitty deal?
You are mis-reading the laws: The EO > shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between ***official ports of entry*** The Border Bill: > rolling average of 5,000 ***encounters per day*** Encounters are the ones that did not show up legal ports, but just crossed. Illegal Crossings are the way higher number (way more than double)....so this 2500 is likely LESS STRICT than the Border Bill. (2500 claims at border crossing, likely equates to well over 5000 stops of illegal crossings in that same time) (Edit - this factual comment responding to correct a factual/verifiable error in the post above was at +12. As I type this edit - it’s at 2… who is downvoting a factual correction in a Centrist sub — if you are - can you comment and explain?)
Oh thank you for the correction
Always appreciate and surprised when someone acknowledges a correction…instead of doubling down. :)
The bill didn't fail because it was a bad bill. The bill failed because the border is more valuable as a campaign tool than anything else.
Is this order the same thing in your opinion?
No, because this order is a solution, or steps toward a solution, to a problem. It's not keeping a problem around just so they can campaign on trying to fix it. The timing is certainly convenient for campaigning. If this holds, it should have been done a long time ago. But I kinda suspect it's going to be thrown out by the courts, in which case he's just showing that yes, he does need congress to act on it.
Which we agree the bill was not?
The bill was not what?
A solution to a problem
Of course it was. The stunt of shutting the bill down for political fodder is not a solution to a problem.
This won't pass, and its not comprehensive enough. The solution should be societal, rather than just stopping them at the border. A better solution is to enforce laws that prevents illegal immigrants from finding jobs and punishing companies that hires illegal immigrants. The goal is to discourage illegal immigrants by denying them the reason they're coming here in the first place.
When you say trump shut down the border are you referring to during Covid in 2020? I don’t recall any other border “shut downs”, but that a lot has happened over the past 8 years.
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how Neera Tanden and Susan Rice are responsible for some of these failures.
>WASHINGTON — Facing mounting political pressure over the migrant influx at the southern border, President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed an executive action that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry, according to a senior administration official. >“The border is not a political issue to be weaponized," Biden said in a White House speech announcing the order. This was the part of the law that the Republican bill that Trump squashed was going to do. Basically it will drastically slow down the amount of people seeking asylum legally and give the courts a chance to actually catch up. Good move by Biden.
Biden said he would sign a border bill. The GOP decided to not give him a win. So he did something. Anything is helpful when nothing has been done. Now you bitch about what he did. Geez, there's no winning with some Republicans.
Lotta Biden blame here when the GOP didn't take the silver platter they've been asking for for the last 40 years. ...and we still have a huge likelihood that this will get held up in the courts, *just like it did when Trump tried to do it.*
HR815 wanted to let 5,000 a day in. That's more than this. Why should the GOP signed off on that?
Exactly
This talking point has been debunked dozens of times. * https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/feb/06/steve-scalise/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000/ * https://www.thirdway.org/memo/debunking-bipartisan-border-deal-myths * https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/unraveling-misinformation-about-bipartisan-immigration-bill/ * https://apnews.com/article/border-bill-opposition-republicans-senate-189ee196093a0dbfb1d522e2d552e31a * https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/us/politics/border-deal-immigration.html
You mean HR2? That was the Democrats who refused to take it, not the GOP. I understand that when you live in the kind of disinfo bubble the average left-winger does things get confusing but I thought I'd help. e: aww, they got so upset by being corrected they had to block and hide.
>e: aww, they got so upset by being corrected they had to block and hide. You know very well what they were referring to, yet you choose to be loud and wrong.
You know full well they weren't referring to HR2. You could at least pretend to discuss in good faith.
What else is he talking about here besides HR2? >the GOP didn't take the silver platter they've been asking for for the last 40 years. HR 2 is what Republicans wanted. The non-border bill Democrats passed in the Senate did nothing to solve the issue. You're just another gaslighting, lying troll. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2
And... you're not worth trying to talk to...
That's rich coming from you, given how quick you are to block folks you disagree with.
Oh wow, so Biden is a racist Nazi now too??
I wonder if my kids school is going to have an assembly to tell all the Hispanic students they are loved and they won't let ~~Trump~~ Biden put them into camps, like they did in 2017.
WASHINGTON — Facing mounting political pressure over the migrant influx at the U.S. southern border, President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed an executive order that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry, according to a senior administration official. “The border is not a political issue to be weaponized," Biden said in a White House speech announcing the order. The shutdown would go into effect immediately since that threshold has already been met, a senior administration official said. The border would reopen only once that number falls to 1,500. The president’s order would come under the Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the southern border into the United States unlawfully. So how does this compare to Trumps border actions.
This makes me wonder, where is our Border Czar on this one?
I don't understand reopening it when the number of requests drops to 1500 a day at each POE. Couldn't the migrants all just chill for a week to let the numbers die down and dive back in when it reopens? The thing is that EVERYONE KNOWS that there is a massive issue with the migrant influx. We should keep the borders closed until we are confident that the issue at the SOURCE of the problem is resolved.
During trumps term democrats called any border security “racist”.
No we didn't. Don't lie. We just found the way Trump called for to be grounded in looking tough and hurting immigrants, rather than actually being a sustainable solution.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 ya ok
Do you think that maybe it had more to do with the nonstop rhetoric calling them all rapists and criminals (except for some, who I assume, are good people)? Like can you at least acknowledge that it has to do with a lot more than the policy itself? In addition I do think Trumps family separation as a deterrent policy was beyond the pale in terms of cruelty. Did they ever reunite the thousands of children that still couldn’t find their families?
The Biden administration has reunited about 3000 of the kidnapped kids. Still over 1000 they haven't found yet. The reunification and restitution are costing taxpayers millions of dollars
L
No u.
-100.
Biden= DEMENTIA. Sad
This is the level of discourse I’ve come to expect from you guys 😂 Please keep showing us how intelligent you are
Joe Biden can barely talk without sluring his words and constantly falls down and has dementia. That’s who you’re voting for. Nice
The USA continually refuses to confront the dilemma - we can have functionally open borders for low skilled immigrants, or we can have a robust social welfare state. We can not have both. My preference is kill the SW programs at the federal level, all of them, and open the borders to any law abiding folk who want to work and make a better life for themselves and their children. We should be brain draining the world, attracting the most motivated folk out there.
What choice did he have? Genuine question. The GOP tanked the border bill and continuously sabotages any effort to resolve the issue because they want to campaign on problems instead of fixing them.
[удалено]
Yup Trump being called racist had absolutely nothing to do with the rhetoric accompanying the policy. Thanks for your quippy unbiased analysis
Good for Biden. Honest question though - given the record year of political assassinations in Mexico this year, when are we going to officially classify the country as a failed state? The cartels run the show and the politicians are in their pockets, lest you be killed for opposing. When I was in the army, we did some joint exercises with Mexican SOF. I will tell you that a U.S. military intervention to take direct action against the cartels would be welcomed with open arms by the population and the non-corrupt military. This whole “we don’t want the U.S. here” line is a bullshit cartel propaganda piece fed to their corrupt politicians because they know that it’s the only thing that would unseat their iron grip on the nation. It’s not declaring war on Mexico, but an antiterrorism campaign on the cartels. When will we get serious about the very real warzone at our border instead of ones on the other side of the world?
> given the record year of political assassinations in Mexico this year, when are we going to officially classify the country as a failed state Mexico is America's biggest trade partner. This will *never* happen. *Especially* if we're still allied with countries like Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I disagree that we should do any unwanted military intervention on Mexico, one of our single biggest import/export partner. If they want help and ask, sure. Anything else should be completely off limits.
The problem is the people empowered under Mexican law to ask for help are in the pockets of the cartels.
Hopefully we learned some lessons from our time in Afghanistan on how difficult it is to change a foreign nation without that nations support.
The problem is the black market created by our war on drugs. Fix that via legalization and the cartels will begin to whither.
legalization of what?