Graham's asylum package - finally!

Ann

Graham will release his bill this Wednesday. Here is a summary:

Asylum application will be made in one's home country or in Mexico (new consulates to be set up in the Central American countries and in Mexico).

Stop Central American applications from being allowed to be made at our southern border (see point just above).

Hold minor children for 100 rather than 20 days to enable family processing prior to release.

Increase judges by 500 and process backlog.

Unaccompanied minors to be sent back to Central America (like we do with unaccompanied Mexican children).


SaveComment227Like6
Comments (227)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

My source is Lindsey Graham. He's on Maria Bartiromo's Sunday Morning Futures today.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Well, good. At least this will give us something to talk about, so we can try to find solutions.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Jared is also working on putting together a package about legal immigration and a move to a merit based system. That is completely different from Graham's Wed. bill and I don't know the details of Jared's ideas.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Mudhouse, yes! When Maria asked Graham if he thought it would pass, he encouraged Dems to bring any different and/or better ideas to the negotiating table. He thinks, if they are unwilling to work on the crisis, Trump should run hard on it for 2020. I so agree! The American people absolutely need a Congress who will do their jobs and work to fix this border crisis (growing worse by the day).

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I think this is quite limited in scope and really focused on the asylum loopholes. I would think, like prison reform, this one might be able to garner bipartisan support. What would either side have to disagree with in these measures? They seem to be very common sense and limited to the asylum magnet problem being so abused.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Long past due. Knowing that children are being abandoned like so much garbage after they are used to cross the border makes my stomach turn. They were far better off in the cages that Obama built.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
numbersjunkie
I'm trying to figure out how you can evaluate a credible fear claim from afar?
1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Numbers, right now that happens in an interview with an asylum officer. Don't you think that interview could be conducted just as easily at a consulate with an asylum officer? I see no reason why not.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Nancy should refuse to table the Bill in the House until McConnell moves the multiple bills passed in the House to the Senate floor.

ETA ...Or similarly, the Dems in the Senate should refuse to consider it until McConnell agrees to move forward wth the Dem Bills."

Chase, do you have any opinions about the points that will be within the bill. Do you think they are good ideas, bad ideas, or do you have better ideas? I'd like to think Congress, at least in some instances (like criminal justice reform recently) has the ability to legislate on behalf of the citizens (and I imagine you'd hope the same for the Canadian government) rather than look at every situation as gamesmanship. I expect you might reply with a comment that goes further into the gamesmanship aspect of who has done (or not done) what in the past, but I think both sides of the aisle are now very aware there is a crisis at our border and it does need work - so I'm curious about what you think about Graham's ideas rather than who you think should jab whom and what gamesmanship you might want to see.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
gyr_falcon(Sunset 23)

Because the republicans hope the people get murdered before they leave, that they will not have any access to asylum attorneys so they can be forced to sign papers they cannot read or understand, in some hidden room in Mexico where the corrupt officials (the proposal apparently wants US joining in with Mexico on this, so they can have a cut) can victimize the asylum seekers even easier and without the victims having any place to turn, and roadblocks so that refusal at the border is allowed, with additional torture for children legislated in for whatever additional benefit it might achieve.

repbulicans say, "What's not to like?"

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Gyr, you lost me after your eighth word.

Well, if the liberals here can't have a real conversation about this real issue, maybe the conservatives can. I'm looking forward to seeing more details of the bill and seeing the conversation in Congress hopefully begin. I've been looking for a link including additional info, but none that I can find yet. In upcoming days, I expect there will be many sources of info as Wednesday approaches. But, I paused the show and replayed it several times so I was careful to get Graham's points and I think I did a good job with that, so I expect the sources will say all what I said in the OP and, hopefully, more.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

"Chase, do you have any opinions about the points that will be within the bill. Do you think they are good ideas, bad ideas, or do you have better ideas"

Ann, as is my practice I don' t comment on what Americans should or shouldn't do with their domestic policies. I confine my comments to the political process, etc.

In this case my comments were directed at the failure of the Republicans to follow regular order and what the consequence of that might be, not the specifics of the proposal.

What Amercans do with immigration is entirety your business , which is not to say I don' t have an opinion. I do.........just not my place to express what I think Americans should do.


Edited

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

gyr_falcon: Because the republicans hope the people get murdered

Right, I stopped reading after that word too, Ann.

Personally I don't have any problem with hiring 500 more immigration judges, if that's what it takes to get the current backlog back to a time frame that's not insanely long. My objection has been to the narrative that Trump has refused to hire more immigration judges (not true) and to the implication that simply hiring more judges is enough to resolve the problem.

By itself, hiring more immigration judges is not a solution to the problem. As part of a proposal that makes additional sensible changes to our laws to stem the current impossible rate of illegal entry, I'm for it.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
gyr_falcon(Sunset 23)

Gyr, you lost me after your eighth word.

Sorry to learn about your attention span (s).

Some are fleeing because they are in immediate danger of getting murdered. That isn't breaking news. There isn't another way to interpret the republicans wanting to force them to stay under such dangerous conditions.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Mexico has hidden rooms?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Well at least Graham is doing something else for a change, instead of crawling up Trump's behind.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro


Ann

Numbers, right now that happens in an interview with an asylum officer. Don't you think that interview could be conducted just as easily at a consulate with an asylum officer? I see no reason why not.

The interviews need to come into the 21st century and be conducted via Skype. There's no reason to come here in person. Do the interview and all the paperwork in their home country, and let them know if they've qualified for asylum.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

I'm trying to figure out how you can evaluate a credible fear claim from afar?

Asylum application will be made in one's home country or in Mexico (new consulates to be set up in the Central American countries and in Mexico).

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Well since an asylum seeker is by definition already in the country, I’m a little confused too. Sounds more like refugee? Although I don’t think refugees can, by definition, be in their home country? Am I off base here?

Those technicalities aside, much of it sounds ok to me. I’d support a freeing up of asylum/refugee seeking in exchange for strengthened enforcement of illegal crossing.

I could use some clarification on the 20/100 day thing.

I do hope that Democrats come to the table with a legitimate response. They need more than obstruction, theoretical solutions, and history lessons about immigration waves if they want to stand a chance in 2020.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
gyr_falcon(Sunset 23)

I'm trying to figure out how you can evaluate a credible fear claim from afar?

Easy. They plan to deny the claims, even before hearing them.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Some are fleeing because they are in immediate danger of getting murdered. That isn't breaking news. There isn't another way to interpret the republicans wanting to force them to stay under such dangerous conditions.

No doubt some are fleeing dangerous situations, but even greater numbers are coming because they want a better life, access to better jobs, and more money. There's nothing wrong with that; it just doesn't meet the requirements for asylum. The laws need to be changed so those who are admitted into the country under the current asylum laws really meet those requirements.

Currently the majority are repeating coached phrases because they know our system is so overwhelmed that we have no choice but to allow entry to all. Frankly I don't blame them. It's our own responsibility as a country to stop kicking the can down the road. Vaguely hoping we can sort out the legality of each case later, and pretending everything will get better, is cowardly and stupid.

Refusing to decide how to deal with our current failed system is a decision in itself, by default. It's a decision to let things continue to spiral out of control. Good for Graham and others who find the courage to put ideas to the table, knowing full well they will be insulted as "white nationalists" and worse.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

What about the Chinese and others that fly into US and apply for asylum?

China alone accounted for an impressive 36% of the asylum grants in 2016, and it has topped the list in every one of the last several years. China has a large population to begin with, so this isn’t too surprising. El Salvador comes in next at a mere 8.6%.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Asylum is an excuse. They'll just come and cross illegally, as always.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I could use some clarification on the 20/100 day thing.

My understanding is the Flores settlement limits the detention of immigrant children in a licensed facility to 20 days. So my guess is that increasing the time frame would allow facilities to detain families with children for longer periods, to allow for more thorough vetting for national security reasons. Also, for the safety of some of the kids. They could do a better job of verifying that the children are actually related to the adults they entered the country with.

Because facilities are completely overwhelmed currently, with no end in sight to the inflow of migrants, Border Patrol has been ordered to release people into communities like mine under their own recognizance. I've read statements from Border Patrol officials saying this is the first time in their entire careers they've seen this practice.

Edited to add a link to show the rather complicated history of Flores:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._Flores

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
enegiram

Asylum is an excuse. They'll just come and cross illegally, as always.

But, it is okay with the right for anyone to fly in and never leave....just not okay for the brown skinned people coming in from the southern border that are illegal immigrants, gotcha!



2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

enegiram: But, it is okay with the right for anyone to fly in and never leave....

No, it's not OK with the right for anyone to fly in and never leave, and Trump is working on that too:

President Donald Trump opened a new flank in his battle against illegal immigration on Monday when he ordered his administration to crack down on "visa overstays" – foreigners who legally enter the country but remain in the U.S. after their visas expire.

The president signed a memorandum ordering the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to submit plans within four months to crack down on overstays, such as punishing countries whose citizens have high rates of overstays and requiring foreign travelers to post "admission bonds" that would be repaid once they leave the country.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/22/donald-trump-orders-crackdown-foreigners-overstay-visas/3544008002/

*************************

enegiram: ...just not okay for the brown skinned people coming in from the southern border that are illegal immigrants, gotcha!

Visa overstays is a major part of the problem, agreed, but not the problem that Graham was addressing, which is the current crisis at the border.

Skin color has nothing to do with the need to focus on the border crisis. Claims of racism do nothing but derail the conversation, but maybe that's what some want to do.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"In this case my comments were directed at the failure of the Republicans to follow regular order and what the consequence of that might be, not the specifics of the proposal."

Okay, well have fun with that conversation.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"The interviews need to come into the 21st century and be conducted via Skype."

Great point!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Those technicalities aside, much of it sounds ok to me. I’d support a freeing up of asylum/refugee seeking in exchange for strengthened enforcement of illegal crossing."


FOAS, I'm likely being stupid but I'm not sure what you mean by this and I'm interested in figuring it out. Could you please elaborate for my sake (maybe everyone else got it already).

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"I do hope that Democrats come to the table with a legitimate response. They need more than obstruction, theoretical solutions, and history lessons about immigration waves if they want to stand a chance in 2020."


I sure think this is true.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"I could use some clarification on the 20/100 day thing."

Right now, a minor can only be held for 20 days, so if a family arrives with a minor, the whole family is released after 20 days (because of the 20 day restriction about minors). The hope is that changing that to 100 days will give the family time to be processed in a court hearing so they can be released into the U.S. or returned to their country, but not be released for a hearing that will occur years in the future. At least, this is my understanding.

This, along with the ability to return unaccompanied minors to Central America, would solve two current situations.

ETA: Reading on, I see mudhouse already commented about this question.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

The president signed a memorandum ordering the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to submit plans within four months to crack down on overstays, such as punishing countries whose citizens have high rates of overstays and requiring foreign travelers to post "admission bonds" that would be repaid once they leave the country.

Well, that should invite retaliation and also kill whatever's left of foreign tourism to the U.S. No foreign travel for anybody, coming or going. Definitely a plus for CO2 emissions reduction/global warming mitigation...

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

We don't want or need folks posing as "tourists" when their real goal is to exploit our lax laws that make suckers out of American taxpayers. Cracking down on exploiters is necessary because, as the left reminds us repeatedly, over stays are a huge problem. Thank you President Trump for working to clean up the mess left by previous administrations.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Right now, a minor can only be held for 20 days...The hope is that changing that to 100 days will give the family time to be processed in a court hearing so they can be released into the U.S. or returned to their country, but not be released for a hearing that will occur years in the future...

Ann, I just read some of Graham's comments and see this is what he's talking about. If we could find a way to schedule court hearings before the family is released, within 100 days, that would be good. I hadn't even considered this as a possibility, since I've read the existing backlog for people to see an immigration judge is approaching eight years. So maybe some newly hired judges could see recently arrived families, while others work on the backlog of those already waiting.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

There are smarter ways to handle overstays than "punishing countries with high rates of overstays (How would that work and what good would it do, unless it made that country ban all travel by its citizens to the U.S.? That hardly seems desirable.) or "admission bonds" (Would you be willing to risk hard-earned cash, in the first place, for non-essential travel, or trust this administration to refund your money when you left? I wouldn't.) There are many, many more attractive places to take a vacation than in a country that views your arrival with suspicion and animosity.

At the top of my list would be imposing penalties on employers who don't use E-Verify and hire undocumented workers. If it's too tough to get a job, the flow of undocumented job-seekers will stop.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

catspat: At the top of my list would be imposing penalties on employers who don't use E-Verify and hire undocumented workers. If it's too tough to get a job, the flow of undocumented job-seekers will stop.

I agree about E-Verify, and I think it's supported by the majority of Democrats and Republicans in polls, so it seems like an area for common ground. This Politico article from a few days ago says the White House is considering a proposal to make it mandatory.

The White House is considering including mandatory nationwide E-Verify in its proposal to reform the legal immigration system, according to three people briefed on the plan.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/09/white-house-mandatory-e-verify-employees-immigration-1421542

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"So maybe some newly hired judges could see recently arrived families, while others work on the backlog of those already waiting."


Yes, I think this is the only way it could be accomplished in less than 100 days.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I am very supportive of e-verify and hope it's a part of any new legislation!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Didn't the Dems push for more judges not too long ago and Trump poo pooed the idea? Actually ridiculed it and posters here agreed.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Didn't the Dems push for more judges not too long ago and Trump poo pooed the idea? Actually ridiculed it and posters here agreed.

Trump doesn't think hiring judges is an effective way to control illegal immigration, and I don't either. In one instance he pushed back on the idea that huge numbers of judges should be hired, pointing out that ultimately we need to have a secure border. I agree with that, too.

Hiring judges should be part of the solution to the backlog problem, but it's not a solution to the problems with our current laws that helped create the backlog in the first place.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

It all returns to what happened in the German and later Russian held countries. There were few US personnel that a person could apply for asylum. Having a person to apply to for asylum in another country without paying off the personnel in the hopes that they would supply the correct paperwork and not send you to prison or death. If you are cheering for the return of this I feel sorry for you.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

I can't see the Dems trusting the Administration to properly staff and process the claims off of American soil. That is one of the things Trump has totally destroyed......any sense of trust or belief that the Administration will act ethically.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
VedaBeeps SoCal 9b/10a(9b/10)

Does Graham address the cost to American taxpayers for these additional consulates and the ongoing payroll of the staff to man them? Where will the money be coming from?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Ann

Mudhouse, yes! When Maria asked Graham if he thought it would pass, he encouraged Dems to bring any different and/or better ideas to the negotiating table. He thinks, if they are unwilling to work on the crisis, Trump should run hard on it for 2020.

This is pretty cut and dry. Dems are either for immigration reform and stemming the tide of illegals entering the country and heading towards every town in most every state, or they are for open borders.

It will be a huge win for Trump either way.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

What would either side have to disagree with in these measures? They seem to be very common sense and limited to the asylum magnet problem being so abused.

We tend to lose Dems with the common sense part and if we do, I think it will disgust Americans no matter their political affiliation.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

No doubt Graham , under Trump and Miller's direction , will fashion the legislation in such a way that the Dems can't possibly support it precisely so they can use it an issue in 2020.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

since I've read the existing backlog for people to see an immigration judge is approaching eight years. So maybe some newly hired judges could see recently arrived families, while others work on the backlog of those already waiting.

At that rate, it's a forgone conclusion that the vast majority of illegals are staying. Either they won't show up, or they'll have anchor babies.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

I'd like to know what possibly the Republicans could put in the bill that Democrats would object to. That's IF the goal of Democrats is to protect our border, fix the immigration loopholes and stem the tide of illegal immigrants and drugs.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

I wish the left would quit referring to them as brown people as if they were of a different race than the rest of us. It's such a racist thing to say.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

mrskjun, the left is making skin color an issue to deflect from the fact they are importing more poverty and more votes. Identity politics and accusing the right of being racist is all they've got.

That and free everything.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

I thought the left was supposed to be the party of the little guy. That's the ones who are finally getting ahead. Finally enough jobs, finally rising wages, and they want to allow people to pour over our borders to take those jobs for less money. Maybe someone on the left can explain it.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

The "little guy" is definitely winning. Jobs are so plentiful that places like where I live can't even hire bus drivers or sanitation workers because there's so much competition.

It's a great job market!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

If the demos pass Lindsey's bill you can bet that Mitch won't allow the senate to vote on it, and if he did allow it to pass through the senate then trump will make up a reason not sign it (what no wall money?). The demos should call Lindsey's, Mitch's and trump's bluff. trump will not give away his immigration fear card.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

I just don't see Trump as not making good on his campaign promises. Based on his efforts, Trump has done everything within his power to get Dems to come to the table and address the border.

It's just partisan rhetoric to assume Trump won't sign Graham's bill. He'll sign it.

Then, he'll run on keeping his promise in 2020.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

"Trump has done everything within his power to get Dems to come to the table and address the border."


Guess you conveniently forgot the deal he had with the Dems that included his wall money.......the one he reneged on after the right wing haters like Miller, Coulter and Linbaugh got to him.

After that who would trust his word except of course his devoted followers.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Dems are already posturing about not needing Graham's bill. They're going to stand in the way of fixing loopholes and keep muttering about the past instead of doing something here and now.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Paul Ryan is gone. New deal.

Again, perfect example of Dems living in the past. Told ya.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Who is talking about Ryan?

The point is Trump can't he trusted to keep his word ......and that isn't in the past . That is every single day of his Presidency.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

The Dems are already making excuses for not working with Graham. But Trump...

Sigh

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"The demos should call Lindsey's, Mitch's and trump's bluff. "


If only we could get so lucky!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Glad you agree it's just another trump bluff.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Huh? This is Graham's work and it's not even close to Trump's desk yet.


Ann, I agree. We will be lucky if Dems "call their bluff". If that's how it gets done, I do not care.

Just do something to fix this.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Graham yesterday.


"The Democrats are going to do one of two things, work with us to find a bipartisan solution, ignore the problem. And if they ignore the problem, it's going to help Trump. If they work with us, it helps the whole country."

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Exactly Carro. I couldn't care less how the Dems choose to view it or spin it. It's a crisis and it desperately needs a solution! Congress has to act and has to be responsible for how they behave and vote in this negotiation. America is watching and waiting for a desperately needed solution!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

maifleur01

It all returns to what happened in the German and later Russian held countries. There were few US personnel that a person could apply for asylum. Having a person to apply to for asylum in another country without paying off the personnel in the hopes that they would supply the correct paperwork and not send you to prison or death. If you are cheering for the return of this I feel sorry for you.

See the conspiracy theory thread.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Yawl just don't get it, do you know trump at all? He will not solve a problem that he hopes will get him re-elected. He will not pass anything that the demos pass even if it were a repub idea. No wall money in the bill is also a kill pill. And ya know what, once trump vetos it you will do an about face and agree with him. So predictable.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

chase_gw

No doubt Graham , under Trump and Miller's direction , will fashion the legislation in such a way that the Dems can't possibly support it precisely so they can use it an issue in 2020.

Gee, that's helpful. Thanks for your invaluable opinion, chase!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

mrskjun(9)

I wish the left would quit referring to them as brown people as if they were of a different race than the rest of us. It's such a racist thing to say.

I agree. It's sadly telling.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

It's gross and demeaning.

As though "brown skin" is something lesser.

I'm pretty brown and I'm offended.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

No doubt Graham , under Trump and Miller's direction , will fashion the legislation in such a way that the Dems can't possibly support it precisely so they can use it an issue in 2020.


Sort of like labeling a bill which takes away states' rights concerning healthcare coverage and calling it a bill to support covering pre-existing conditions.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

Well if they had white or very light skin they would be welcomed by those that are currently objecting to their entry so saying it is not the color of their skin is laughable.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

It's laughable that the Left actually thinks calling us racist is going to stop Americans from wanting to close the asylum loopholes, strengthen our border and stop the illegal immigration and drug crisis.

Weak tea!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I agree Stan and Elvis. It is very offensive. It's a rare family these days that doesn't have a mix of skin colors and that "brown skin" thing is such an offensive narrative, and if they only knew those to whom they are trying to make their point, they'd be terribly embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. All one can really do is shake their head and feel sorry for them and the complete ignorance of that kind of comment.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

It's like the left doesn't realize that "brown" Americans who came here legally also feel strongly about illegals flowing into our country and sucking up our tax-payer resources, often getting more provisions than American citizens.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Ann, Republicans need to put on the table, a key component to controlling illegal immigration, which is enforcing ICE detainers. ICE needs to act on every ruling and deport.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

maifleur01

Well if they had white or very light skin they would be welcomed by those that are currently objecting to their entry so saying it is not the color of their skin is laughable.

I'm against unauthorized persons residing in the US no matter what they look like, so knock it off with the broad brush, maif.

You didn't specifically except yourself in your statement ^^^. Are we to infer that you support open borders, or that you object to unauthorized persons living in the US, and if so, what is your skin color preference? Your writing indicates that skin color is very concerning to you.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

I don't care what anyone's skin color is. If they're here illegally and gaming our system, send them packing.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

FOAS, I'm likely being stupid but I'm not sure what you mean by this and I'm interested in figuring it out.

My understanding is that we’re accepting less refugees under Trump. What I’m saying is I’d be open to allowing more people with legitimate refugee/asylee concerns over illegal immigrants.

One thing that comes to mind along with maifleur’s concerns about out-of-country applications, is that we’d be forcing more into refugee status versus asylee status, and the former is controlled by the president.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cait1

Isn't E-Verify just an electronic version of 'Show me your papers.'? It's just such a shame that we're all now guilty until proven innocent.

Anyway, illegals can buy social security #s and fake green cards. Crime doesn't bother illegals one bit.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Food wrote: What I’m saying is I’d be open to allowing more people with legitimate refugee/asylee concerns over illegal immigrants.

Sounds completely reasonable. That's good to hear, very good. I wonder how many others feel this way, but are hesitant to say as much, for fear of being deemed to be in discord with their political tribe, or of being labeled as "racists".

Food, maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's likely that most of the subject unauthorized persons are neither asylees nor refugees, but rather simply migrants seeking opportunities. We do need to regulate this.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

elvis, the vast majority of people crossing some sectors, like San Diego, are not even bothering to claim asylum. Most are economic refugees, bent on coming here illegally instead of respecting our laws and processes.

Right now, it matters not that they claim asylum, so they're simply not. They know they'll be released in no time at all, and already have their plans to get to family members all over the country. Once they get released, they're on to their new lives.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Food, maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's likely that most of the subject unauthorized persons are neither asylees nor refugees, but rather simply migrants seeking opportunities. We do need to regulate this."


I believe only approximately 10% are determined to have valid asylum claims (within the Central American recent influx).

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

Isn't E-Verify just an electronic version of 'Show me your papers.'? It's just such a shame that we're all now guilty until proven innocent.

I, too, loved the old days, when everything was pretty much done on trust. That was especially a part of the culture of the western U.S. to which I am native, where many came to get a new start and did. These days, 24/7 cable news thrives on the constant generation of fear, hate, and distrust, eagerly lapped up by what seems huge numbers of regular viewers, and those days are gone. What other explanation, for example, for so much fear of crime when crime rates have been at record lows? (Murder rate in NYC is now something like 1/10 what it was when we lived there, but we, in our "ignorance", didn't cower in fear, even in those days; on a practical level, it didn't affect us, even living in poverty in, purportedly, a "dangerous" part of the city.) Now the cable news viewers are being told that the U.S. is being invaded and to be very afraid, never mind that the numbers entering the U.S. illegally were vastly larger in the past.

All that being said, it is still important to maintain some control over who enters and stays, and to find some way to manage and mitigate what is causing so many to flee their own countries. But, we also don't want to have so much fear and loathing of immigrants that we fall into the trap nationalist dictator Viktor Orban has in Hungary. He's pretty much banned all immigration, to return his country to cultural "purity", and, as a result, the Hungarian economy, which should be growing leaps and bounds, has been significantly throttled by lack of enough workers. Little Stephen Miller, who is driving immigration policy in the WH, with basically the same motivation as Orban, wants to cut legal immigration and green cards by at least 50%. That would be a mistake.

As for the necessity of "papers", being required to show a passport to enter the country is a form "show me your papers". You also need to get a long laundry-list of "papers" together to get a RealID, without which, in the near future, one does not get on a plane or into federal facilities. Conservatives don't seem to have a problems with these. I find RealID pernicious.

Many other "papers" also need to be shown to gain employment: transcripts, degrees, references, drug test results... Yep, employers are an untrusting, suspicious lot, for sure...except for proof of citizenship, it seems.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Ann just to be clear I was thinking beyond just Latin America.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

"Right now, it matters not that they claim asylum, so they're simply not. They know they'll be released in no time at all, and already have their plans to get to family members all over the country. Once they get released,"

Why are detained illegal entrants who are not claimimg asylum being released rather than deported ? What " hearing" are they waiting for?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Illegal migrants are being released because there's nowhere to put them.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Graham's asylum package - finally!

Every time this OP title pops up....

Did Lindsey get a Great Deal for membership in an insane asylum, his TDS in an advanced stage?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Without trust I wonder how far any of this will get ? I think the erosion of trust in this President's word will undermine any bipartisan support for this legislation as outlined above.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

chase, whatever happened to personal responsibility? Whenever Dems get caught or their ranks involved in hatred and thuggery, it's always Trump's fault.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

What has that got to do with the fact Trump has not been good to his word when it comes to working with the Dens on immigration.....nada.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Prim Rose

No to the 100 days for children being held. That's not gonna happen. Sorry wingers,

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Lol, you better let them know so they're clear on that, Prim Rose:)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

It's now clearly just a game to the right-wingers -- no sincere desire to discuss real solutions-- just a platform for gratuitous fabricated facts and accusations. Meanwhile, the rest of us will keep trudging along, trying to figure out what the real solutions are.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Real solutions are what Graham is offering. No doubt the Dems will refuse to work with him and plunder his efforts, so nothing gets done.

Sorry, kids, you're the free meal ticket and good luck not getting abused or assaulted as you get smuggled.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

That's so heartless. Where's the liberal empathy? I haven't seen anything written by them in defense of these defenseless children...

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Now, the plan has been released and the Dems begin responding. Durbin was asked about it today and part of his answer was that the GOP doesn't really want to work on immigration. He said this as he shook his head. Sure, Dick, we'll see how that attempted narrative plays in the next election. The Dems can reject Graham's ideas, and Kushner's upcoming ideas, try to say the GOP doesn't want to work on immigration, and see how that goes with voters. I'm sure most voters will think Dems are actually the ones who want a secure border and good asylum and immigration processes and laws (deep sarcasm intended). This will be an interesting thing to watch Dems try to navigate (oppose) successfully!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

And Kushner's plan is out too:

Washington (CNN) Participants at a meeting between Republican senators and White House senior advisers Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller found the President's advisers' proposal to revamp the US legal immigration system to be lacking in substance, according to a senior GOP official familiar with the presentation.

"I think folks in the room were underwhelmed" with the "whole plan" presented by Kushner and Miller, the official told CNN.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/politics/kushner-immigration-plan-gop-senators-meeting/index.html

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Meanwhile, in nearby Deming NM, the city council voted unanimously on Monday to declare a state of emergency. They just started receiving drop-offs of immigrants on Sunday. They have 200 migrants in an old airport hangar building, and another 150 in a building on the fairgrounds.

"50 percent of them in that building right there are young children," a volunteer told ABC-7, "It breaks my heart, you know, because of the journey they've made."

The Deming city council made the declaration in the hopes of getting additional funding to cover their expenses.

https://www.kvia.com/news/border/migrant-surge-deming-declares-state-of-emergency-processing-migrants-at-state-fairgrounds/1077932660

"This shouldn't be our problem, but it is," Sera [mayor of Deming] said. The option would have been to let the waves on immigrants on the streets of Deming but Sera could not see that with the children involved.

https://www.demingheadlight.com/story/news/2019/05/14/city-council-declares-state-emergency-influx-immigrants/1196251001/

I don't understand how anyone can say this is a game.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Kushner' s plan was not received particularly well with Republicans yesterday. It doesn't address DACA or the fate of those already in the country and the hardliners are not happy that the number of immigrants isn't being reduced.

Graham's plan offers nothing to entice Dems to get on board...nothing In fact it contains things that he knows they won' t support.

Bottom line, neither proposal reaches out to Dems ...and that is no accident. They don' t want to solve the problem in a bipartisan way......they want to set it up as a 2020 issue......and Ann' s post proves their strategy will work with the base.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Graham's plan offers nothing to entice Dems to get on board...nothing In fact it contains things that he knows they won' t support."

Graham's ideas would stop the asylum magnet and you think that "offers nothing to entice Dems to get on board". Why would that be? Would it be because Dems support thousands of Central Americans being released into the U.S. daily because they've flooded our borders and know there is currently not a thing we can do to stop them from entering and staying for the rest of their lives? And, "Graham's plan offers nothing to entice Dems to get on board". IMO, the logic behind that statement is beyond comprehension! I wonder if our Canadian "friends" would feel differently if we put half of them on planes to land at Canadian airports daily?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Not true:

"Would it be because Dems support thousands of Central Americans being released into the U.S. ..? "

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

What is true, Ziemia? What do you think of Graham's ideas? If you don't like them, what you support and why don't you like Graham's ideas?

ETA: And by the way, do you agree with Chase's comment, Ziemia? I've heard you say many times that Dems aren't the party of open borders and that opinion is a lie or "Not true". Please elaborate as to why anyone would or should think otherwise. What do Dems want to do about the current border crisis and the caravans of Central Americans?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Ziemia(6a)

Not true:

"Would it be because Dems support thousands of Central Americans being released into the U.S. ..? "

I want to know your answer too, ziemia.

It certainly looks like the dems want just that. If that isn't what they want, what do you propose to stop the influx of unauthorized persons, especially across the southern border?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

" being released into the U.S. "

Could you provide some context? Would they be released because they were accepted on asylum terms? If so, then yes.

If you mean it is because someone dropped them off illegally, then no.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

There are elements in the proposal that Dens will not support, that does not mean they don't support the concepts. I don't know why that is a hard concept to grasp .

There is a problem that has to be solved but it can only be solved if there is a bipartisan solution. By definition bipartisan means a bill reflecting a compromise between the two parties.

Let's see how open the Republicans and Trump are to changes proposed by Dems. Mind you it won't matter, the Dem haters will say that any demands the Dems make are unacceptable and that the Dems are obstructionists for asking for modificatins or additions.

We' ll see how open Graham really is to working with the Dems or whether this is just a ploy to set up fur 2020.'


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

We' ll see how open Graham really is to working with the Dems or whether this is just a ploy to set up fur 2020.'

(expletives deleted) Can somebody on the left tell me why they think that any proposed solutions to the problem of over 100,000 people breaching our southern border last month alone would be brought forward as only a ploy or a game?

Don't you think any elected officials understand the crisis at the border? Do you really think that none of them actually care whether or not a solution is found? Do you really think that none of them understand the obvious repercussions of this situation continuing unabated for the foreseeable future?

From where I stand (and live) the situation is serious, and the proposals and conversation are serious. Any proposals should be given honest consideration, and not sneered at like unimportant points in a stupid political power battle between the two sides.

Edited to add, over 5000 migrants have now been released in my own city, since mid April. And no end in sight, without changes to our legislation.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

chase wrote: I don't know why that is a hard concept to grasp...

Mind you it won't matter, the Dem haters will say that...

We' ll see how open Graham really is to working with the Dems or whether this is just a ploy...

You don't sound open-minded. Of course, "bi-partisan" when it comes to American politics is irrelevant to you. You are Canadian, and a presumably legal part-time guest here in the US.

Some here will object to my writing that. That kind of attitude kind of stings, doesn't it, chase? It's decidedly unhelpful.

"Mind you".


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Couple of things Elvis........

I am not open minded when it comes to Trump's motives.......I don't trust him one little bit. Nor do most Americans , nor do most of your allies. I stand with the majority in that regard.

As I have stated many times, what happens in the States matters to me on a financial, security and social level.......and I will comment as I see fit. I don't require your approval nor do I seek it....and I certainly am not "stung" by anything you, or others, have to say. In order to be bothered by your comments I would first have to respect your opinion.

I am not in the business of trying to be helpful, or not helpful, on American domestic issues and have not expressed an opinion on what the US should do in terms of immigration policy, gun policy, racism, abortion and on and on....

You and the others who resent my commenting here, have absolutely no idea what my opinions are in terms of what Americans should do on immigration or any other domestic policy issue.

"Mind you", you seem to have drawn some conclusions .


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I don't require your approval nor do I seek it....and I certainly am not "stung" by anything you, or others, have to say. In order to be bothered by your comments I would first have to respect your opinion.

Oh yes. Anyone reading can see that, LOL. Do carry on!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Good, glad I was clear......

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

" Can somebody on the left tell me why they think that any proposed solutions to the problem of over 100,000 people breaching our southern border last month alone would be brought forward as only a ploy or a game? "

It is amazing to think that, isn't it? Yet, solutions are slow to come. What could the reasons be? You'd think our elected officials ... all the way to the top ... would be working on this night and day, working with the Democrats, to get this solved as quickly as possible. I really don't see that they are very serious about fixing this right now.

" Edited to add, over 5000 migrants have now been released in my own city, since mid April. And no end in sight, without changes to our legislation. "

Seems like this should be Trump's top priority, his signature accomplishment which showcases his ability to work with all sides. Alas, he seems content to kick it around for base enrichment.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

Senate Politics 101: If you want to get something, you have to give something. This pretty much seems all posturing on Graham's part, as he has certainly been around long enough to know that.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

Insurrection Act of 1807 incoming.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

Why hasn't anyone said anything about the plan that Trump unveiled today?


President Donald Trump announced a broad plan to reform border security and legal immigration during a speech on Thursday afternoon, calling for changes that would favor young, educated immigrants instead of those with family ties to the US.

Yet even as Trump cast the measure as a consensus plan that would finally solve one of Washington's most intractable challenges, there were signs the proposal faces an uphill battle for consensus even among the Republican Party's own ranks. And Democrats are all but certain to oppose it, deeming its reforms drastic and inhumane.The measure calls for replacing longstanding family-based immigration rules with a points-based system that would favor highly-skilled, financially self-sufficient immigrants who learn English and pass a civics exam.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/donald-trump-immigration-plan-announcement/index.html

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

The "tell" that it is merely campaign posturing is here, from Trump himself:

"If for some reason, possibly political, we can't get the Democrats to approve this merit-based high security plan, then we'll get it approved immediately after the election when we take back the House, keep the Senate, and, of course, hold the presidency," he said from the Rose Garden. "Wouldn't it be nice to do it sooner?"

If he were serious, he would be negotiating with the Democrats. There is also, apparently, no written plan, only what Trump said today in the Rose Garden, something even the Republicans are finding unsettling.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"It's decidedly unhelpful."

God, yes! For some, it's nothing more than the "gamesmanship" and a game to them. For others, it's our country!

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Why hasn't anyone said anything about the plan that Trump unveiled today?

Trump's opening of the conversation about a range of immigration issues is a good thing. Possible changes to the Visa system are important.

But changes to our immigration policy really don't matter as long as our laws allow people from other countries to walk across our southern border and determine the future and nature of our country. As long as we keep the current asylum laws in place, we're handing the decision about the future of our country over to those who are willing to cross the border illegally. Right now, we're letting the people in Central America make that decision for us.

The real question is, who gets to decide who enters our country? American citizens, or people who want to come in?

If we don't care enough as a country to take control of that decision, it will absolutely be decided for us by people who want to come in. We have to start with that reality, and build a system that gives us the ability to decide and control, now and in the future, who comes here. We can decide in the future how much we want to open the door, for how long, and to which people. But right now, we don't even have the ability to close the door if we wanted to.

In the short term, proposals like Graham's asylum package matter a lot more than the upcoming immigration policy decisions Trump was discussing today, because the bigger current need is to fix the border crisis. I think many Americans are more worried about our apparent inability to stop people from entering illegally than how we should revise the future process for people who come here legally.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

mudhouse, illegal immigrants are also displacing and jumping ahead of people trying to come here legally. I don't understand why we're not standing up for them and helping get them to the front of the line.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

mudhouse, it appears that bottom line you don't think much of what Trump announced for his plan and that it does nothing to address the current situation on the southern border.

I think it would be more productive for him to be leading changes with the two parts of Congress than announcing things that apparently are not going anywhere. I just don't see Trump putting much effort into addressing what he has declared to be a crisis.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

mudhouse, it appears that bottom line you don't think much of what Trump announced for his plan and that it does nothing to address the current situation on the southern border.

Sunflower, that is not what I wrote, and it's not what I think.

I haven't had time to watch the video of Trump's comments in the rose garden, but I read the CNN article you linked in your comment. The article contained a few general comments about the border:

"That is a wall that is desperately needed," he said. "As we close the gaps in our physical framework, we must also close the gaps in our legal framework."

On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced legislation that would, in part, change the asylum process, saying "the White House's plan is not designed to become law."

Trump offered a nod of approval to Graham's plan on Thursday, but cast the measure as an immediate fix compared to the longer-term solution he was introducing.

As I've posted, it's obvious we need to close some physical gaps on our southern border and change asylum laws. We need an immediate southern border fix from Congress, in addition to having a bigger conversation about revising other legal immigration laws. These are two different things. I agree with what Trump's said so far about changes to the Visa system, but I think people are obviously and correctly a lot more focused on the border crisis right now.

Who gets to decide who lives in the US, the American citizens on this side of the border, or the people who want to come in? Do we want to be able to control that decision, or not? If so, Congress needs to do what's necessary to fix the border. They need to do it now.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

Ok, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

But I repeat that I don't think that Trump is sufficiently focusing on what needs to be done right now to improve the southern border. He needs to be a leader and all I see is him being a posturer and a divider.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Carro, imagine people trying to immigrate here legally, watching news coverage of thousands of people crossing our border illegally every day. Almost 99,000 southern border apprehensions in April alone. They must wonder why they're even trying to do it the right way.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

The more Trump talks about limiting the immigration to skilled or stopping it entirely the more they will try to get in before he closes it to them. He is causing the very problem he claims he wants to solve.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Thanks sunflower. Well, you and I see Trump differently. I think he's been clear from day one on his opinions about border security. Congress has the responsibility to make the laws.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

People who cross here illegally are not jumping the line ahead of any people taking the legal route. If they get across undetected, they stay in the shadows. If they are apprehended, they are not ahead of anyone else (in fact, they are probably behind).

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

The more Trump talks about limiting the immigration to skilled or stopping it entirely the more they will try to get in before he closes it to them. He is causing the very problem he claims he wants to solve.

I'd say that anyone who feels we can't even have a conversation about the importance of our own border security, and immigration law, is strongly on the side of letting people from other countries decide our future.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

If they get across undetected, they stay in the shadows.

Well, that's just creepy.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

" I think he's been clear from day one on his opinions about border security. Congress has the responsibility to make the laws. "

Of course they do, but clearly he will only sign one he likes and therefore it is incumbent upon him to lead the discussions in a fruitful manner.

For example, Obama incorporated many Republican ideas into the ACA with the hope that some Republicans would vote for it, but they decided that they would vote against it no matter what, in lockstep.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

People who cross here illegally are not jumping the line ahead of any people taking the legal route. If they get across undetected, they stay in the shadows. If they are apprehended, they are not ahead of anyone else (in fact, they are probably behind).

Americans are the ones who will ultimately decide on border and immigration laws. Americans are watching the news, and they know huge numbers are now entering the country illegally. That understanding affects their opinions about the laws passed that affect legal immigration.

People who cross illegally are absolutely jumping the line in front of those who are currently going through the long, expensive process of legal immigration. They're getting in immediately. They're also closing the door to some who might choose that legal path in the future, because Americans will factor in illegal immigration as they form their opinions about how stringent the requirements should be for legal immigration.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

" They're getting in immediately. "

Getting in immediately only to live in the shadows, fearful of being detected? That's some perk.

Or they are being deported because 90% of them don't have a valid claim? The only 10% are being asked to wait in Mexico.

You say people are people dumped into your town. Who is dumping them? Why aren't they being sent back to Mexico like Trump said they would be?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

You say people are people dumped into your town. Who is dumping them?
Why aren't they being sent back to Mexico like Trump said they would be?

I haven't used the word dumped, that's your word. The Border Patrol is under orders to release these migrant families into many cities along the border because there's simply no room in current holding facilities, and because of the Flores law, they can only be detained in those facilities for a number of days.

They're not "dumped", they're brought in by bus, and by border patrol vans, long lines of them. They're taken to churches and shelters being cobbled together as communities scramble and pay for their care out of city coffers and the pockets of residents.

My city used their homeless shelter as the primary drop off point, until they realized they could no longer care for local homeless people. So they backed out, and more churches stepped up. Now my city is renting and renovating a derelict military reserve building ($12,000 a month just for the rent) to house the migrants while they receive care and help with transportation to airports and bus stations. Nearby Deming is using an airport hangar and fairground buildings, so that families with kids aren't "dumped" into the streets.

Our current laws do not require these families to be returned to Mexico. They're given a court date (some as much as 8 years out, from my reading) and released. Our current laws have to change.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

Agreed our current laws don't require that, it's policy that Trump enacted.

El PASO — Some asylum-seeking migrants here will be sent back to Mexico soon under an expanded policy that requires refugees to wait on the other side of the Rio Grande until their hearings before an American immigration judge.

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed that the Migration Protection Protocols, also known as “remain in Mexico,” was expanded to include the El Paso port of entry on Tuesday. An official said people will be sent across the border to the Mexican state of Chihuahua starting later this week.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/21/trump-administration-brings-new-policy-asylum-seekers-el-paso/

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Adding, I'm behind in my reading and understanding about how the recent ruling might affect the asylum process. Trump sought to have asylum seekers wait for their court date outside the border, but that was initially blocked by courts. I think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled the program could continue for the time being, but now officials in Mexico will have to scramble to house people.

I've tried to find articles with predictions about how this recent legal decision might affect the numbers of migrants being released into border cities right now, but I haven't had much luck so far.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Live in the shadows?? Dems want to give them free education, healthcare , driver licenses and voting rights!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Pretty soon we’re going to be giving illegals reparations!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Agreed our current laws don't require that, it's policy that Trump enacted.

We cross posted, sunflower. No, the laws that allow people to cross the border illegally, claim asylum, and be released into our country while awaiting a court date predate Trump. Those are the laws that are drawing people to cross in huge numbers now. And the Flores settlement (also predating Trump) affects people who travel with children; that law requires them to be released quickly (unlike individuals not travelling with children.) That's why the number of families being apprehended at the border has skyrocketed.

Trump's policy to require asylum-seeking migrants to wait for their court date outside of the border is one an example of a solution that you claim he's not providing. This isn't "posturing," it's a policy change that could start to slow the rush of people to our border. If they learn (eventually) that they can't automatically be released into the US, as has been the policy in the past, some of them won't take their kids and endanger their lives on a journey that has no guarantee of US entry.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Mudhouse- you make great points about Americans’ right to self determination and how the crush of illegals is displacing resources for Americans and legal migrants.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"You say people are people dumped into your town. "

Sunflower, we already have too many on HT that regularly twist the words of others. I wish you would choose to not participate in that. After just saying you didn't mean to put words in someone's mouth (which was highly appropriate and good of you to acknowledge), you started doing the very same thing again right away. Mudhouse is making her own opinions very, very clear and they don't need rewording or interpreting. If you want to address one of her very clear points, why not simply quote it and then give your own opinion? She's doing a fine job of making her opinion extremely clear.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Carro, I agree! Excellent points from mudhouse!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

Ann, thoughtful criticism from you, thank you.

I have told mudhouse already that I did not mean to put words in her mouth. I hope she continues to apply that sentiment towards future blunders.

But discussions are fluid and, just as if we were speaking in person, people are allowed to go back and forth.


" Trump's policy to require asylum-seeking migrants to wait for their court date outside of the border is one an example of a solution that you claim he's not providing. "

He's not doing anything to change our laws. That is what I have said.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Congress needs to change the laws. Both sides need to cut the carp and fix illegal immigration.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Pelosi parsing words is exactly the swamp carp that needs to stop, and she needs to be the leader right NOW.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

Trump won't sign anything that he doesn't agree with; having Pelosi do the work only for him to shoot it down is time wasted.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Agreed, Carro. Congress needs to change the laws, IF they really care about this country having a say in who comes to live here.

sunflower: He's not doing anything to change our laws. That is what I have said.

Trump is calling for the laws to be changed, in the very CNN article you linked, above!
"As we close the gaps in our physical framework, we must also close the gaps in our legal framework."

His attempts to change the policy about where asylum seekers have to wait has been blocked with legal challenges, and the recent decision allowing it to continue may only be temporary. It's on Congress.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

I can't state enough, apparently, that I agree that Congress drafts the laws and signature by the President makes them actual laws. The House and Senate have work to do but McConnell has said he won't take up anything that Trump won't sign.

Trump has to set the direction, not just say something vague like 'close the gaps'.

He could be a real hero if he would put his personal efforts into this. I don't see that happening.

ETA: I recognize that your perception of his involvement is different and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Thank you for your time.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Thanks for the exchange, sunflower. I don't mind if people disagree with me; it helps me think about where I need to do more homework.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

Trying to go piecemeal, by wanting to fiddle with asylum laws here and wall funds there and legal immigration policies on top of that, is not going to work, because, first, Democrats are not going to buy into them without getting some of the policies they want and, even more significantly, and as the Democrats correctly understand, it ignores some other large issues that also need to be addressed at the same time in order for all of it to mesh: DACA and the other undocumented already here who constitute at least 5% of our nation's current workforce.


Another crisis is brewing with the recent "no-match" letters initiative relaunched by Social Security, which sent out 575,000 to employers in April informing them of mismatches between names and SS numbers of employees, giving them 60 days to rectify the errors. source Of roughly 39,000 ag employees in the San Joaquin Valley, about 24,000 so far have been tagged "do not match" by the SSA, leaving their employers in a quandary, because there are no other workers available to do this work and many of these employees have been with them a long, long time. The actual percentage of undocumented workers in ag is likely even higher than that. The status of these workers needs to be formalized somehow and, no, "sending them back to where they came from" is not a realistic answer, at least not unless you want a recession or other hits on the economy, not to mention large sectors of ag. Forcing employers to use E-verify and applying penalties on them (which I think would be an important step in eventually getting control over illegal immigration) before this gets resolved will simply drive it underground, which is not the direction we want to go. The status of the DACA also needs to be resolved and not left in limbo.


So, what is needed is comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform, not Trump (or his minion Graham) up there making one-sided demands, posturing for the base, and refusing to do any deal-making with the Democrats.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

I was surprised how superficial Kushner's plan was. He only addressed one aspect of a very complex problem...and the easiest one to boot. I really expected it to be broader and deeper.

Even Graham said it was not anything that could ever be turned into legislation.....or words to that effect.

Leaving me to think it is nothing more than an election talking point.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Of course they do, but clearly he will only sign one he likes and therefore it is incumbent upon him to lead the discussions in a fruitful manner.

Not really.

Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

As to Congress: The legislative branch of the federal government, composed primarily of the U.S. Congress, is responsible for making the country's laws. The members of the two houses of Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate—are elected by the citizens of the United States.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Even Graham said it was not anything that could ever be turned into legislation.....or words to that effect.

Graham said:

“We all know you’re not going to pass this without dealing with the other aspects of immigration"

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

The previous sentence in Graham' s quote

" Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who oversees immigration legislation, said Kushner’s bill isn’t going to become law.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Trump won't sign anything that he doesn't agree with; having Pelosi do the work only for him to shoot it down is time wasted."

I'm only caught up to this comment so far, but I think this is exactly why the Senate is getting the ball rolling. I think Trump would sign both the asylum and merit legislation. Pelosi simply has to join in the effort and propose changes she'd like to see.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

Sure, having the Republican-controlled Senate take the lead sounds good if they will make sure Trump is on board with what they are proposing. Do you know if he is?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I would certainly think so, sunflower. I haven't read or heard anything saying otherwise.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

I hadn't heard that the Senate was taking up the mantle on the overall immigration bill. Quite the opposite.....Graham indicated it was going nowhere as proposed.... what did I miss?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

Democrat Dick " Durbin said Graham’s proposal was “a non-starter as legislation, but it is a starter for debate. So I welcome the fact that he’s going to put it before the committee and open the discussion on amendments.” "


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-graham/a-wall-will-not-fix-this-us-senator-graham-offers-more-steps-to-limit-migrants-idUSKCN1SL2FO

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Chase, Sunflower was discussing Trump being on board (or not) with the bills the Senate is proposing - not how the various Senators were feeling about the bills.

I think an inclusive and broad immigration bill has less chance of passing in our currently highly divisive government than in decades. I think anyone who chooses to play the "we need complete immigration reform" game right now (we do desperately need it, but it couldn't possibly happen in this divided political climate IMO), is just being silly.

Graham has proposed some very common sense targeted solutions to our very serious asylum loophole issues, and Dems can do with that as they see fit. I know less about the other bill, but I saw Pelosi being very critical of "merit". Good thing she doesn't legislate in Canada. By the way, we now have about 4500 people a day being released because we have no room to house them at our southern border. I just read today that these people will now be flown to other areas of our country where facilities are more plentiful, like our northern border cities. Maybe Canada will decide merit isn't important and open up their southern border, regardless of merit to Canada. I'll find the source of the northern border info and post it.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

What a good idea, Mrs.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Elvis, I'm scrolling back to see the good idea from mrskjun and can't find the comment. What was it?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Thanks for that article Ann. I'm not surprised they have to start moving people to other US Border Patrol facilities, since the ones at the southern border are now completely overwhelmed. I can only imagine what it will cost to fly migrant families to facilities on the northern border.

That means states from Oregon to North Dakota to Maine may begin receiving planeloads of migrant families in the weeks to come. On Tuesday, Customs and Border Protection sent its first plane full of migrants from Texas to San Diego.

...the CBP official said they are searching only for Border Patrol facilities with the space and computer systems necessary to process large number of migrants each day. The official said the agency is not sending migrants to parts of the U.S. closest to their requested destinations, but making transportation decisions solely on each Border Patrol station's ability to receive large numbers of migrants.

The CBP official could not estimate the average cost of each flight. But on Monday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which operates the flights, issued a public request for a contractor to handle up to 60,000 migrant transfers a year, with the vast majority of them (88%) being transfers by air.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Ann: I think an inclusive and broad immigration bill has less chance of passing in our currently highly divisive government than in decades. I think anyone who chooses to play the "we need complete immigration reform" game right now (we do desperately need it, but it couldn't possibly happen in this divided political climate IMO), is just being silly.

I completely agree Ann, I think it's a game to suggest that no action can be taken to solve the current problems unless all of the needed immigration reforms are resolved at the same time.

I don't forget there are people actively making the case that the US would benefit from open borders.

Additionally, there are others who may not want open borders at all, but they don't see the recent increase in illegal immigration as a big problem. They either don't believe that large numbers of asylum seekers don't show up for their court dates, or they think it's not detrimental to the country if don't. So they don't see the need for an immediate solution.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

" Maybe Canada will decide merit isn't important and open up their southern border, regardless of merit to Canada. "


There is a huge difference between immigration policy and solving the current crisis at the Southern border, Conflating the two just causes confusion. Our immigration policy is merit based but our amnesty and refugee policies aren't .

It makes sense to me to tackle tackle them separately (immigration and the current crisis) . One is clearly more urgent than the other. How you solve both issues is entirely up to you and I have offered no opinion on what should be done.

My comments about immigration reform are limited to the political process part and all I'm saying is that there is no way a merit based system becomes law without tackling the other facets of the problem like DACA , migrant labour and a look at amnesty and refugees that goes beyond whatever is legislated to handle the Central American crisis.

BTW Graham agrees with me......

ETA

"I have offered no opinion on what should be done." Even though I have never expressed an opinion on what American immigration and amnesty policies should look like there seems to be several here who think they know what I think about the matter.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

" There is a huge difference between immigration policy and solving the current crisis at the Southern border, Conflating the two just causes confusion. "

I agree. Democrats have repeatedly said they were all in favor of funding more personnel (like judges) to handle the backlog of people (which is part of Graham's proposal). If everyone agrees on that, why not move forward while we work on the other parts?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Yes, SF, while we’re paying for “more personnel” to handle millions of people ILLEGALLY entering our country, we can also pay for additional food, lodging and medical care as well. You democrats are just sooooo intelligent and compassionate.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

The faster you process them, the faster you can get them out of the country. The only reason they are still in the country is because they haven't been processed for their claim of asylum. Duh.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

They shouldn’t be here in the first place — and wouldn’t be —if there was proper barriers. DUH

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

But do you see the logic that if we can process them out of here then that's a better thing than what is happening now? It's takes time to build barriers, surely you can acknowledge that walls don't go up overnight even after being funded.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"It makes sense to me to tackle tackle them separately (immigration and the current crisis) . One is clearly more urgent than the other. How you solve both issues is entirely up to you and I have offered no opinion on what should be done."

Hmmm, you have expressed how you think Nancy should respond to plans put forth by members of our Congress or administration - your strong wish that she see to it that our legislation fail. I guess you feel that's appropriate?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"there seems to be several here who think they know what I think about the matter"

We know how much you want our current administration to fail with immigration or border security policy.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Yes, SF, while we’re paying for “more personnel” to handle millions of people ILLEGALLY entering our country, we can also pay for additional food, lodging and medical care as well.

Paprikash is right to point out that allowing more people to enter the country illegally (while supposedly waiting for agreement on other immigration reform issues) has an actual cost to the country and to the individual cities that host them.

The immigration judges we have now are trying to bail out a boat with a growing hole in the hull. Hiring more judges is a good idea as part of a package that includes fixes for the hole in the hull. Hiring more judges without doing that is only trying to bail faster, and at more expense to the country.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

Does Graham's proposal fix the hole in the hull?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Post deleted........just not worth it but suffice to say my thoughts have yet again been purposefully misrepresented.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Chase, I'll simply let your words speak for themselves. Please note the first 3 words in the first of these quotes below (all from this thread). I think you are giving a clear indication of how you think Nancy should respond rather than, "only on how I think she MAY respond".


"Nancy should refuse to table the Bill in the House until McConnell moves the multiple bills passed in the House to the Senate floor."

"I can't see the Dems trusting the Administration to properly staff and process the claims off of American soil. That is one of the things Trump has totally destroyed......any sense of trust or belief that the Administration will act ethically."

"No doubt Graham , under Trump and Miller's direction , will fashion the legislation in such a way that the Dems can't possibly support it precisely so they can use it an issue in 2020."

"Without trust I wonder how far any of this will get ? I think the erosion of trust in this President's word will undermine any bipartisan support for this legislation as outlined above. "

"Graham's plan offers nothing to entice Dems to get on board...nothing In fact it contains things that he knows they won' t support."

"We' ll see how open Graham really is to working with the Dems or whether this is just a ploy to set up fur 2020."

"Let's see how open the Republicans and Trump are to changes proposed by Dems. Mind you it won't matter, the Dem haters will say that any demands the Dems make are unacceptable and that the Dems are obstructionists for asking for modificatins or additions."

"Couple of things Elvis........

I am not open minded when it comes to Trump's motives.......I don't trust him one little bit. Nor do most Americans , nor do most of your allies. I stand with the majority in that regard.

As I have stated many times, what happens in the States matters to me on a financial, security and social level.......and I will comment as I see fit. I don't require your approval nor do I seek it....and I certainly am not "stung" by anything you, or others, have to say. In order to be bothered by your comments I would first have to respect your opinion.

I am not in the business of trying to be helpful, or not helpful, on American domestic issues and have not expressed an opinion on what the US should do in terms of immigration policy, gun policy, racism, abortion and on and on....

You and the others who resent my commenting here, have absolutely no idea what my opinions are in terms of what Americans should do on immigration or any other domestic policy issue.

"Mind you", you seem to have drawn some conclusions ."

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Yeah, and I can see why it would be deleted. Maybe you decided to review a bit at the same time I did.

ETA: I did save the one you deleted in case you want to revisit it.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

Does Graham's proposal fix the hole in the hull?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Speaking of hulls ...

Those desperate to come here from our south will switch to boats as others have.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Sunflower, I don't know what the "hole in the hull" is but I think Graham's proposal is an excellent, targeted, and very important proposal. If Dems aren't in support of open borders, I can't see how any part of Graham's proposal wouldn't be seen as common sense. It would help alleviate the current and serious border crisis is a very big way.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Ann, there is no point in arguing with you. You will always view my posts through the bias of your personal feelings towards me rather than the content of what I post. I really don't care ........except to say you are dead wrong about what I think.

Everything I posted, everything you cut and pasted , is process related. Nothing in any of that express my wish to see the legislation fail. Quite the contrary I think bipartisan solutions can be reached if both sides really cared to do that.

I only speak of what I think will be the Dem reaction and what I think is the motivation of the Administration .

That's it, that's all......

I have no opinion on what the legislation should look like nor do I have any wish to see any proposed legislation pass or fail.....and I have never expressed that.

I leave you to your personal preoccupation with me.......your problem not mine.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"I can't see how any part of Graham's proposal wouldn't be seen as common sense."

Not surprising. Parts are fine. Parts aren't. I'm looking forward to seeing signs of authentic negotiating. That (negotiation), for me, is common sense.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

mudhouse: The immigration judges we have now are trying to bail out a boat with a growing hole in the hull. Hiring more judges is a good idea as part of a package that includes fixes for the hole in the hull. Hiring more judges without doing that is only trying to bail faster, and at more expense to the country.

sunflower: Does Graham's proposal fix the hole in the hull?

Graham's proposal doesn't "fix" the hole in the hull entirely, but it certainly helps. Border barriers preventing groups of people from illegally crossing outside ports of entry would help, too. And requiring those seeking asylum to wait outside our borders will help, too. If people from other countries understand they won't gain immediate entry into the US by crossing illegally and claiming asylum, fewer of them will subject themselves (and their kids) to that dangerous journey.

Graham's four points:

1. Increasing the amount of time families can be detained from 20 to 100 days would make it possible for new immigration judges to determine their asylum claim eligibility before being released into the population. That decreases the number that need to be released into the US to await their case.

2. Having applicants make their claims at American consulates in their home countries (or possibly Mexico) would remove their incentive to travel to the border to make their claim. That decreases the number needing to be released into the US while they await their case.

3. Treating unaccompanied minors from non contiguous countries (like we treat those from Canada and Mexico) would make it easier to deport them in a timely manner. That decreases the number released into the US while they await their case.

4. Adding 500 new immigration judges decreases the number because some of them could hear cases of families while still in detention, and others could clear out the backlog and return those who don't meet the requirements for acceptance under asylum laws.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Are there any provisions within Graham's proposal that recommends / guarantees the number of consulates, staffing limits or wait times for processing?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Graham: “If we do these four things, then the incentives created by our laws will cease to exist, this humanitarian disaster will begin to repair itself and I am willing to sit down with Democrats and find a way to address the underlying problem in Central America,” he said. “I am illing to put other immigration ideas on the table to marry up with this but what I am not willing to do is ignore this problem any longer.”

Good for Graham.

******************************************
Chase: Are there any provisions within Graham's proposal that recommends / guarantees the number of consulates, staffing limits or wait times for processing?

I've read lots of articles, Chase, but so far I haven't found any direct links to further details. If you find one it would be great if you could post it here.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Graham's proposal doesn't "fix" the hole in the hull entirely, but it certainly helps. Border barriers preventing groups of people from illegally crossing outside ports of entry would help, too

Mudhouse, Democrats know this--hell, they voted for it! Democrats in the Senate voted to fund the border, period.

What's changed? Trump is President. The demographics and home countries of those who illegally cross. The percentage of men coming to work vs. families unable to support themselves in any way, shape or form. Our facilities being overrun.

All changes that can't be trivialized with notions that overall illegal immigration is down compared to when Obama was in office.

We can't turn illegals around back to Mexico.

Different ballgame, all together.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

mudhouse, Democrats are going to fight on getting rid of Flores, even though they know it's killing us.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

. If Dems aren't in support of open borders, I can't see how any part of Graham's proposal wouldn't be seen as common sense. It would help alleviate the current and serious border crisis is a very big way.

Ann, Dems are going to fight every single point of Graham's proposal, even though yes, it's common sense and will only further hurt America if they don't forget about the Mueller report, destroying Barr and getting Trump out of office for just one minute.

I get that stuff's not going away for the never Trumpers, but Congress can still act on the immigration crisis, no matter WHAT.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

"I've read lots of articles, Chase, but so far I haven't found any direct
links to further details. If you find one it would be great if you
could post it here."


Nor have I mudhouse which is why I asked the question. I also can't find anything that talks to how Graham is trying to put some meat on the bones of his proposal or what the next steps are in moving the proposal forward.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I believe this is the bill, which is in the first stage of the legislative process. No text is available yet (the plan being introduced three days ago.) I read it will typically be considered by committee next, before possibly being sent on to the House or the Senate.

S. 1494: A bill to amend the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to protect alien minors and to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to end abuse of the asylum system and establish refugee application and processing centers outside the United States, ...
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s1494

1 Like Save     Thanked by Ann
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

."I read it will typically be considered by committee next, before possibly being sent on to the House or the Senate."


Process question......can a bill originate in the Senate and go to the House before being passed by the Senate? Does the fact it's a proposed change to existing legislation rather than a totally new piece of legislation play in?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Flores is not legislation nor is it an EO.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Process question......can a bill originate in the Senate and go to the House before being passed by the Senate? Does the fact it's a proposed change to existing legislation rather than a totally new piece of legislation play in?

Here's my understanding, and if this is wrong, I hope someone will feel free to chime in and correct me. The bill originated by Graham will go to a Senate committee next to work on it, and once it's been voted on (favorably) by the committee it can advance to the Senate floor for a vote.

Meanwhile, the House is usually introducing and voting on their own companion piece of legislation on roughly the same issues. If the House and Senate bills have differences, those can be addressed by a special conference committee with members from both the House and the Senate, hopefully to arrive at a final bill to send to the president, to sign into law, or veto.

But when Congress is divided like it is now, the House could decide to not even introduce and vote on a bill addressing the issues in the Senate bill. A law can only be passed if both the Senate and the House of Representatives introduce/vote on similar pieces of legislation, so the House could refuse to make it possible for the Senate's bill (in this case, Graham's bill) to become law, by not even taking up the issue.

All of which makes me a little pessimistic, to be honest, on the issue of immigration.

I don't know if the process differs if what's being discussed is a change to existing legislation (I would guess not?)

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Thanks! I am a sponge when it comes to the political process, I find it facinating..

I did a little research too and , as you indicate , my understanding is that the House can refuse to bring the Senate bill to the floor without proposing their own version. That would be a huge mistake in my view.

Mind you, I don' t see a bipartisan bill coming out of the Senate.......but who knows!! If they can manage a bipartisan bill it very well might pass the House. Wouldn't that be something!!!!

Edited

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Ann

Elvis, I'm scrolling back to see the good idea from mrskjun and can't find the comment. What was it?

Ooops! It was your comment that was a good idea. Sorry for the confusion, Ann!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sunflower_petal(5a)

" my understanding is that the House can refuse to bring the Senate bill to the floor without proposing their own version. That would be a huge mistake in my view. "

Isn't that exactly what Ryan did in 2013 when the Senate had a bill on immigration?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Did he?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

I see in the newz that trump only wants immigrants that speak english and have needed work skills. Is this is how to stop immigrants from taking jobs away from Americans which is what he ran on? Who's going to pick the lettuce?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I flipped to MSNBC last evening and Chris Matthews "The Deciders" Town Hall was on. It was interesting when Chris spent a bit of time on immigration and border security. It seemed like Chris and the participants couldn't think of anything the Dems are proposing or any Republican ideas they are agreeing with. I think Chris was trying to make a point about the lack of anything on the topic and indicating it is sensible that Americans who are concerned about the border and the crisis might think the Dems want open borders and want an unlimited flow of people we have to let free in our country. In fact, when Chris brought up the topic, he kind of carefully asked how the participants felt about it - and kind of tossed in a - those of you who think we have any sort of problem - bit. I think Chris views it as weakness that could bite Dems. No kidding! Dems might die on this immigration hill. To be so focused on TDS that they can't allow a crisis to be solved and must oppose any efforts to do so, is becoming glaringly obvious and not in a good way. IMO, it hurt them in 2016 and could kill them in 2020. The crisis is simply too real and too big now.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

"Chris and the participants couldn't think of anything the Dems are proposing or any Republican ideas they are agreeing with."

Guess they missed the part about extra judges which was a Dem proposal rejected by Trump. There are only four points and one is from the Dems.

I haven't heard any news at all about what Graham is doing to get Dems on board .....if he has involved them in Committee or sought their input. If he has it's obviously being done out of the public eye.

In fact as was discussed upthread there hasn't been any word about putting meat on the bones on the proposal from either side so not surprised people don't know.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Then, I was watching The Journal Editorial Report, and the panel agreed what the Trump administration is doing is very good. They think proposing realistic ideas (though they admitted Jared's merit plan was still vague, but not so with clear details of Lindsey's) will be very good for Trump even if it's simply to take a reasonable and manageable plan into the election (should the Dems refuse to work with the GOP, which they think is highly likely). They think this will be a big plus for Trump in the election - actual, manageable, good ideas.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Extra judges to work our backlog and to process new people faster is a part of Graham's plan (500 extra judges). I don't think anyone will oppose adding extra judges.

Is that all Dems have to say about the border crisis - extra judges? Do the Dems here think the key to our border crisis, the Central American caravans, the 2500 people per day easily crossing our border, the 20 day Flores rule, the release of thousands we can't shelter and legally must release, the cost of health care and services for all the illegals entering and already in our country, etc., is extra judges? Do Dems plan to run on extra judges (by the way, how many do the Dems want?) as a border and immigration plan/solution?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"I haven't heard any news at all about what Graham is doing to get Dems on board"

Well, are they on board? Should he be offering them donuts? Do the Dems in Congress think there is a border crisis or not? If they think we have a crisis, why aren't they doing their job and solving it. Heck, the typical path is for legislation to generate in the House. Where are the House's legislative solutions to the crisis or is the Dem House good with the current border situation? Graham is doing his job. Where are the Dems and where is the House? Taking a nap or spinning in their TDS world?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

My point was that you said "Chris and the participants couldn't think of anything the Dems are proposing or any Republican ideas they are agreeing with."

That is not true. Additionally you and the FOX gang have no idea what conversations have been going on, where the Senate Dems stand ...there has been zero news on the subject.

ETA As far as the House goes I haven't heard anything other than Nancy saying sometime ago that there was no sense the House working on a Bill Trump won't sign or that McConnell won't bring to the floor. Perhaps she is just leaving it up to the Republican controlled Senate to fashion the legislation as she works on other things like Infrastructure.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

What is true, Chase? What are the Dems proposing to solve the border crisis? Why don't you bring me and Chris Matthews up to date by informing us what you've heard or read the Dems are proposing or wanting.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Did you read my post? I said there has been nothing in the news.....no reporting at all. So what could I have heard!!!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Last fall, Kevin McAleenan (DHS acting head) said that investment in the 'sending' countries was as important as enforcement in stopping unauthorized migration.

And, the more Trump describes Central American countries as irredeemable and horrible, the more he strengthens the case for granting shelter in the US.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

PS: Kevin said this morning "The Trump administration will not send immigrants who cross the southern border to Florida, a reversal that was decided over the weekend, acting Department of Homeland Security chief Kevin McAleenan told "Face the Nation" Sunday."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I did read it, Chase. When I discussed Dems not having anything on the topic, you said, "That is not true.". What do they have?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

PPS:

The Department of Homeland Security has remained embroiled in drama even after the tense resignation of former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in April.

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan threatened to leave his post after President Trump's senior adviser Stephen Miller tried to dictate agency hiring, administration officials told The Washington Post on Friday. McAleenan blocked Miller's attempts, but he reportedly made known that he needed to have more control over his agency.

The dispute revolved around former FBI official Mark Morgan, whom Trump selected to be the new director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Miller, though, sought to have Morgan installed as the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection instead. But McAleenan made clear to White House officials, including Trump's chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, that he, not Miller, was the head of the DHS in closed-door meetings. One anonymous Trump aide described the clash as an "immigration knife fight."

McAleenan ultimately prevailed and Morgan will take over as acting ICE director next week. Read more at The Washington Post.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I haven't heard any news at all about what Graham is doing to get Dems on board .....if he has involved them in Committee or sought their input. If he has it's obviously being done out of the public eye.

In fact as was discussed upthread there hasn't been any word about putting meat on the bones on the proposal from either side so not surprised people don't know.

Good grief Chase, Graham only announced the plan on Wednesday. Have a little patience, maybe? Congress unfortunately isn't known for doing anything fast. I'm just relieved there are some ideas on the table, to be honest, and I'm sure not going to shoot them down because they're not progressing quickly enough.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

The disarray in the West Wing will make moving forward challenging.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Ziemia, are you suggesting sending more money to the Central American countries? If yes, does the Dem plan include sending them more money and resources and putting more judges at the border? Is that most of it or is there more?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"Good grief Chase, Graham only announced the plan on Wednesday. Have a little patience, maybe?"

So, maybe stop with the demands to know right now what the congressional Dems are planning?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catticusmockingbird

It's Ann that seems to be in a muck sweat

I learned a new word this morning. Thanks Chase.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"It's Ann that seems to be in a muck sweat"

I think it's a rather disgusting comment. I'll leave Chase to it, and catticus if she so chooses.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Just an expression used to describe "all worked up" .......

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Actually, Republicans in the House do appear to be working on the border. Republican, Collins is introducing a House bill this week (dealing with the Flores decision and raising the credible fear standard in the asylum piece). As Collins explained, 80-90% of asylum claimants are let in and released (saying they have credible fear) but only about 10% of those cases actually hold up to the legal credible fear criteria once they reach the immigration court (if they even come back for that appearance). So, the Collins bill would raise that credible fear standard to better reflect actual credible fear regulations. Finally, his bill, like Graham's, would enable the sending back of Latin American minors (like with Mexico and Canada). His legislation does, in some ways, overlap with Graham's Senate proposals. So, Republicans are hard at work. Dems current focus is on DACA rather than the border. I believe Collins said they will release DACA legislation in the House this week.

ETA: The source of this Doug Collins info was an interview with him on Maria Bartiromo's show this morning. I just looked for any links (in print) to provide more info, but can't find any yet.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Ann, it would be great if Congress could have DACA and immigration reform/loophole fix coalesce to produce comprehensive legislation.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Ann, Bartiromo's Sunday show has been great! I need to set my dvr.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

...seems to be in a *muck sweat*

I learned some Canadian today, I think,?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I'll pass on that Canadian lesson:) That's disgusting. I'd like to hope it's not a common term among Canadians, but I don't know if it is or isn't.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I just googled and can't find info saying it's a common slang saying in Canada. Maybe it's a Chase thing.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Ann

I just googled and can't find info saying it's a common slang saying in Canada

Let's hope not. They'll quickly blow their reputation of being well-mannered.

muck sweat

noun

informal

noun: muck sweat; plural noun: muck sweats

a state of perspiring profusely.

When one thinks about the origins of the word "muck", it's an even more fun term:

muck (n.)

mid-13c., muk, "animal or human excrement; cow dung and vegetable matter spread as manure," from a Scandinavian source such as Old Norse myki, mykr "cow dung," Danish møg; from Proto-Germanic *muk-, *meuk- "soft," which is perhaps related to Old English meox "dung, filth" (see mash (n.)). Meaning "unclean matter generally" is from c. 1300; that of "wet, slimy mess" is by 1766. Muck-sweat "profuse sweat" is attested from 1690s.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

I don't think it's a Canadian expression. It was one my Nana ( British ) and my Mom used to use when she thought we were getting needlessly upset or worked up about an issue. She would say "don't work yourself into a muck sweat".

She also used to say "go suck a zube" when she was fed up , well not really fed up , more like some might say " stick it in your ear" ...have fun with that one

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Jane

I am very supportive of e-verify and hope it's a part of any new legislation!

LOL

Newsflash - your president is not very supportive of e-verify, so it looks like it's time to reassess your support of e-verify.

President Trump said in an interview airing Sunday that he has concerns about a verification system that checks whether someone can work in the United States legally — a tool that his namesake business began using company-wide earlier this year.

In an interview with Fox News Channel conducted last week, Trump said a new White House plan to overhaul portions of the legal immigration system could “possibly” include the use of E-Verify. But he also said that the verification system could be overly onerous on certain employers, such as farmers, who Trump said were “not equipped” to use it.

“I used it when I built the hotel down the road on Pennsylvania Avenue,” he said, referring to the Trump International Hotel in Washington. “I use a very strong E-Verify system. And we would go through 28 people — 29, 30 people — before we found one that qualified.”

He continued: “So it’s a very tough thing to ask a farmer to go through that. So in a certain way, I speak against myself, but you also have to have a world of some practicality.”

The president’s comments about E-Verify draw attention back to the hiring practices of the Trump Organization, which has employed undocumented immigrants as waiters, groundskeepers and housekeepers even as Trump made battling undocumented immigration a signature issue.

*

a Trump company may be relying on some undocumented workers to finish the $200 million hotel, which will sit five blocks from the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, according to several who work there.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspat(aka)

It's not practical to strictly mandate use of e-verify without resolving the status of the 8 million undocumented who are already part of our workforce, most of whom have been here for years and are good members of their communities. The excuse that farmers are "not equipped" to use it is hogwash. It's pretty clear that Trump wants to ignore and sidestep resolution of that part of the legal/illegal immigration problem -- "amnesty", after all, plus it would dry up the source of cheap, illegal labor that he, among others, exploits.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Speaking against himself, eh?

I guess a smidgen of self-awareness is better than none...

Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Holidays Host a Perfectly Imperfect Cookie Decorating Party
When sisters get together with their kids to decorate cookies, formality is the last thing on anybody's mind
Full Story
Life 8 Stress-Busting Tips for Hosting Small Gatherings
Make entertaining easy with these ideas for casual get-togethers
Full Story
Tastemakers How Tupperware’s Inventor Left a Legacy That’s Anything but Airtight
Earl S. Tupper — and his trailblazing marketing guru, Brownie Wise — forever changed food storage. His story is stranger than fiction
Full Story