Trump reminded Biden he secured the border without new legislation

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2024, 08:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be quite frank, even if you pulled that text out and voted on it the House would never pass it. The unfortunate reality is that the GOP is so adamant about not giving Biden a win on this topic so they can use it in the election, that they won't pass any legislation that would help him out. This isn't me saying the Democrats wouldn't do the same thing in their shoes, it's just that the GOP are the ones playing that game at this moment. They have admitted to it, after all.

(02-06-2024, 11:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Democrats won't do it because they would end up embarrassed. Either they fail to pass it because not enough of their members would vote for it as a stand-alone because they don't like it, or it passed with mostly Republican support.

This is the problem with partisan politics. They get in the way of actual governing. Both sides of the aisle are focused more on the optics and maintaining or gaining power rather than running the country.

I have to point out that these posts offer contradictory scenarios.  I don't disagree with you on partisan politics standing in the way of governance, but you basically laid the blame solely on the GOP in your first post and when Crow made an excellent counter you described a scenario in which the Dems are to blame.  I think it's more accurate to say that the margin in the House is so thin that the more extreme members, e.g. MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, AOC, Omar, Tlaib have more power than they should given their extreme positions.

All this being said, Crow's proposal is a win win for the country.  Either it shows the nation that the GOP isn't serious about securing our borders, which eliminates a huge talking point for them in an election year, or the bill passes and a much needed power to enforce immigration law is bestowed to CBP agents, making our borders safer.

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2024, 12:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to point out that these posts offer contradictory scenarios.  I don't disagree with you on partisan politics standing in the way of governance, but you basically laid the blame solely on the GOP in your first post and when Crow made an excellent counter you described a scenario in which the Dems are to blame.  I think it's more accurate to say that the margin in the House is so thin that the more extreme members, e.g. MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, AOC, Omar, Tlaib have more power than they should given their extreme positions.

All this being said, Crow's proposal is a win win for the country.  Either it shows the nation that the GOP isn't serious about securing our borders, which eliminates a huge talking point for them in an election year, or the bill passes and a much needed power to enforce immigration law is bestowed to CBP agents, making our borders safer.

I lay blame currently at the feet of the GOP because they won't vote for immigration reform whether it is coupled with other things or stand alone. They were calling for immigration reform bills for the past two years, up to December 2023, and now that Trump has said he doesn't want it to happen they have backed off. Democrats will vote for bipartisan, coupled legislation, but they wouldn't have enough to carry it as a standalone. And that is the difference.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2024, 02:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I lay blame currently at the feet of the GOP because they won't vote for immigration reform whether it is coupled with other things or stand alone. They were calling for immigration reform bills for the past two years, up to December 2023, and now that Trump has said he doesn't want it to happen they have backed off. Democrats will vote for bipartisan, coupled legislation, but they wouldn't have enough to carry it as a standalone. And that is the difference.

You really don't think there's enough GOP votes to pass that law as a stand alone piece of legislation?  I'll bet you could fine the three or so votes needed in Texas alone.

[Luvnit2]

(02-06-2024, 02:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I lay blame currently at the feet of the GOP because they won't vote for immigration reform whether it is coupled with other things or stand alone. They were calling for immigration reform bills for the past two years, up to December 2023, and now that Trump has said he doesn't want it to happen they have backed off. Democrats will vote for bipartisan, coupled legislation, but they wouldn't have enough to carry it as a standalone. And that is the difference.

It is a nice try trying to blame the crisis at the border on Trump and the GOP. It won't work. Have you read this bill? It is filled with bad conservative policy, that is why Trump and the GOP are against it. It does nothing to stop the massive flow into the country immediately nor address those in the country illegally now.


It alos continues to give money to Ukraine which no longer is favored in polling, the majority want our border SECURE first before we have Ukraine secure their border. So blame all you want, kick and scream because you and your fellow Democrats want the Republicans to fix the mess on the border Genocide Joe created, they won't do it because their base sees it as bad bill filled with non starters.

For those who want to play the blame game, Johnson sent Schumer a clean immigration bill months ago, Schumer said the same thing Johnson said on this bill, dead on arrival so both sides have tried to get new immigration law passed. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2024, 02:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You really don't think there's enough GOP votes to pass that law as a stand alone piece of legislation?  I'll bet you could fine the three or so votes needed in Texas alone.

You'd need more than three in the House. Remember, the House is home to the more extreme folks on both sides. You'd lose a lot of Democrats and the pressure from GOP leadership would be to not vote for it because of Trump's comments. Not a chance it would pass the House as a standalone.

When it comes to the legislation as a standalone, it has far less of a chance for passage than the combined bill does because neither side has enough to pass it thanks to idiocy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2024, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You'd need more than three in the House. Remember, the House is home to the more extreme folks on both sides. You'd lose a lot of Democrats and the pressure from GOP leadership would be to not vote for it because of Trump's comments. Not a chance it would pass the House as a standalone.

When it comes to the legislation as a standalone, it has far less of a chance for passage than the combined bill does because neither side has enough to pass it thanks to idiocy.

Why would it lose a lot of Democrats?  Are they not interested in securing the border?  As for GOP votes, why would Trump oppose this legislation on its own, to deny Biden a win?  He could absolutely engineer it to look like he enables its passage by pushing the GOP to vote for the stand alone.  For many people, and I'm not talking MAGA people here, it would look like Trump intervened to get something done even while out of office.  As you said yourself, the Dems would not all vote for it, so Trump intervening would be crucial.

[Luvnit2]

Dr Phil did something neither Genocide Joe or Harris did, he went to the border and did an in depth look. His words were shocked and insane. I provided the link, my guess not one Democrat in the forum will read it and also admit, the invasion on the border was created by Biden's weak immigration policy. Border patrol is saying the number of border crossings since Biden took office is 2X what is reported or closer to 15 million. Yes, that is insane when you compare it to Trump's numbers.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-phil-admits-different-treatment-migrants-border-shocked-insane

Dr. Phil admits different treatment of migrants at border shocked him: 'Just insane'
Dr. Phil recently visited the southern border and criticized the Biden administration's handling of the border crisis
By Kristine Parks Fox News
Published February 6, 2024 11:16am EST

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2024, 02:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why would it lose a lot of Democrats?  Are they not interested in securing the border?  As for GOP votes, why would Trump oppose this legislation on its own, to deny Biden a win?  He could absolutely engineer it to look like he enables its passage by pushing the GOP to vote for the stand alone.  For many people, and I'm not talking MAGA people here, it would look like Trump intervened to get something done even while out of office.  As you said yourself, the Dems would not all vote for it, so Trump intervening would be crucial.

There are a lot of Democrats that consider the bill to not align with their politics when it comes to the border. They consider it too strict.

As for the GOP, here is the issue. If they pass a bill right now then there will be months of implementation and Biden's administration being the ones to implement it. The die-hard Trump fans will see him as the reason because *bbbbaaaaahhhhh*, but voters have the memories of goldfish and the optics would be Biden securing the border leading up to the election. Immigration is the biggest bullet they have right now and they are not going to give it up in any way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2024, 04:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are a lot of Democrats that consider the bill to not align with their politics when it comes to the border. They consider it too strict.

As for the GOP, here is the issue. If they pass a bill right now then there will be months of implementation and Biden's administration being the ones to implement it. The die-hard Trump fans will see him as the reason because *bbbbaaaaahhhhh*, but voters have the memories of goldfish and the optics would be Biden securing the border leading up to the election. Immigration is the biggest bullet they have right now and they are not going to give it up in any way.

I have to concede you've made a good point here.  I would add though that this does not excuse the Dems complete inaction on this issue until election year, for the exact purposes of giving Biden a win during election year.  This has been a major issue for years, their inaction until now, other than to put Kamala in charge of the problem is inexcusable.  So I would continue to maintain that they share a large portion of the blame on this issue.

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2024, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to concede you've made a good point here.  I would add though that this does not excuse the Dems complete inaction on this issue until election year, for the exact purposes of giving Biden a win during election year.  This has been a major issue for years, their inaction until now, other than to put Kamala in charge of the problem is inexcusable.  So I would continue to maintain that they share a large portion of the blame on this issue.

On the issue, absolutely. However, the failure of this bill to become law lays smack at the feet of the GOP. They introduced HB2, a bill to give more authority to the executive to curb illegal immigration. They have been talking since before then about the need for new laws to combat the issue. It was seriously as recently as December when they were asking for bipartisan legislation to deal with the issue in order to pass aid to Ukraine. Now that Trump has said he doesn't want it, and all for the electoral problems it would cause, they are coming out saying Biden somehow had enough authority all along to do something unilaterally even though they said they needed to pass legislation before.

The immigration debate is a bad faith one all around. Unfortunately, there are enough people that can't see through the facade.

[*Nately120*]

(02-06-2024, 06:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: On the issue, absolutely. However, the failure of this bill to become law lays smack at the feet of the GOP. They introduced HB2, a bill to give more authority to the executive to curb illegal immigration. They have been talking since before then about the need for new laws to combat the issue. It was seriously as recently as December when they were asking for bipartisan legislation to deal with the issue in order to pass aid to Ukraine. Now that Trump has said he doesn't want it, and all for the electoral problems it would cause, they are coming out saying Biden somehow had enough authority all along to do something unilaterally even though they said they needed to pass legislation before.

The immigration debate is a bad faith one all around. Unfortunately, there are enough people that can't see through the facade.

I'm skeptical there would actually be electoral problems for Trump if a border bill got passed.  Hell, if the border were magically fixed 100% great everything is perfect Trump could still just say "The border is a total mess, 10000000000 rapists come across it every minute" and the same folks would believe him.  If Trump wins in 2024 isn't he just going to say that the economy is great, there is no more inflation, and the border is 100% secure?

At this point he and his supporters can't possibly care about anything other than what he says and convincing others that he's saying stuff that makes sense and is true, right?

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2024, 07:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm skeptical there would actually be electoral problems for Trump if a border bill got passed.  Hell, if the border were magically fixed 100% great everything is perfect Trump could still just say "The border is a total mess, 10000000000 rapists come across it every minute" and the same folks would believe him.  If Trump wins in 2024 isn't he just going to say that the economy is great, there is no more inflation, and the border is 100% secure?

At this point he and his supporters can't possibly care about anything other than what he says and convincing others that he's saying stuff that makes sense and is true, right?

I mean, you're not wrong. One of the interesting things about the border discussion is that the crisis really...isn't. But the narrative is what it is and trying to convince anyone of anything different is just such a mind-blowing thing that they can't comprehend it.

Don't get me wrong, there are issues with our immigration system, but the "crisis at the border" is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy that is used for electoral gains. It just shows the power of messaging.

[*Nately120*]

(02-06-2024, 07:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, you're not wrong. One of the interesting things about the border discussion is that the crisis really...isn't. But the narrative is what it is and trying to convince anyone of anything different is just such a mind-blowing thing that they can't comprehend it.

Don't get me wrong, there are issues with our immigration system, but the "crisis at the border" is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy that is used for electoral gains. It just shows the power of messaging.

I'm sure the footage was gloriously cherry picked for lulz, but the folks who convoy-ed down to the border seemed bored enough by the lack of illegals to stop that they went back to their standard "mill around, yell the usual talking points, buy/sell Trump merch, and occasionally fight amongst yourself and accuse others of being FBI/pedos" schtick. 

[CJD]

(02-05-2024, 09:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If it's going to be that helpful to pass something that includes that, why not just pass that one section into law on its own?  

The reason that bills are paired together with other things (in this case, aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan) is because, from the Democrat's position, they are yielding to the Republicans in regards to the border. On its own, some Democrats would be hesitant to pass border security provisions, especially those on the further left spectrum.

On the flip side, Republicans would be hesitant to pass more funding for Ukraine, especially those on the further right spectrum.

So wish list items from both sides of the aisle are frequently paired together as a form of "If I scratch your back, you scratch mine."

The problem with separating them, as you suggest, is that the Republicans would get their back scratched, but then when the Democrats propose a singular bill for aid to Ukraine, the Republicans who got their backs scratched could immediately pretend the back scratching never occurred.

Nobody wants to be the fool who scratched first and got nothing in return.

The old saying, "There is no honor among thieves" should be reformed to "There is no honor among politicians."

EDIT: Although it seems like Schumer is going forward with a stripped down foreign aid bill after the Republicans blocked this border bill.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/chuck-schumer-push-stripped-israel-ukraine-aid-package-gop-blocks-sena-rcna137661

I'm sure that will go swimmingly in the House.

[CJD]

(02-06-2024, 07:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, you're not wrong. One of the interesting things about the border discussion is that the crisis really...isn't. But the narrative is what it is and trying to convince anyone of anything different is just such a mind-blowing thing that they can't comprehend it.

Don't get me wrong, there are issues with our immigration system, but the "crisis at the border" is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy that is used for electoral gains. It just shows the power of messaging.

It's not a coincidence that Caravans always showed up in election years, then stopped being relevant in December. They even, unironically, call it an invasion. Which is just so ridiculous it's comical.

The truth is, the "border crisis" is the Republicans' best bullet and it will remain that way until they have complete control of all 3 chambers and still do nothing about it.

And then when a Democrat majority enters a single one of those chambers, it will crop back up and will be blamed on those Democrats' bad policies, even if nothing was implemented or changed.

It's a cyclical thing that has been happening for as long as I can remember.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2024, 01:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The reason that bills are paired together with other things (in this case, aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan) is because, from the Democrat's position, they are yielding to the Republicans in regards to the border. On its own, some Democrats would be hesitant to pass border security provisions, especially those on the further left spectrum.

Which begs the question, why?  What American, especially a public servant, wouldn't want a secure border?

Quote:On the flip side, Republicans would be hesitant to pass more funding for Ukraine, especially those on the further right spectrum.

So wish list items from both sides of the aisle are frequently paired together as a form of "If I scratch your back, you scratch mine."

I get how politics work (no snark intended here btw).  But that doesn't address my point.  If this new power for CBP agents is so crucial, as is being touted by the left leaning posters in this thread, why not pass it on its own?  The answer to that question completely destroys their narrative, hence the complete avoidance of this point.

Quote:The problem with separating them, as you suggest, is that the Republicans would get their back scratched, but then when the Democrats propose a singular bill for aid to Ukraine, the Republicans who got their backs scratched could immediately pretend the back scratching never occurred.

This forces me to reiterate, why is securing our borders scratching the backs of the GOP only?  Why would the Dems want an unsecure border through which criminals and fentanyl can easily pass?  

Quote:Nobody wants to be the fool who scratched first and got nothing in return.

The old saying, "There is no honor among thieves" should be reformed to "There is no honor among politicians."

EDIT: Although it seems like Schumer is going forward with a stripped down foreign aid bill after the Republicans blocked this border bill.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/chuck-schumer-push-stripped-israel-ukraine-aid-package-gop-blocks-sena-rcna137661

I'm sure that will go swimmingly in the House.

It won't.  This game of passing bills and potential legislation that is DOA in the other chamber is inane, and yes, business as usual.  I am forced to reiterate my main question though, why do the Dems view a secure border as a win only for the GOP?  It's a win for every single legal US resident.  Kinda makes you question the Dems actual motivation in this regard, doesn't it?

[CJD]

(02-07-2024, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which begs the question, why?  What American, especially a public servant, wouldn't want a secure border?



I get how politics work (no snark intended here btw).  But that doesn't address my point.  If this new power for CBP agents is so crucial, as is being touted by the left leaning posters in this thread, why not pass it on its own?  The answer to that question completely destroys their narrative, hence the complete avoidance of this point.



This forces me to reiterate, why is securing our borders scratching the backs of the GOP only?  Why would the Dems want an unsecure border through which criminals and fentanyl can easily pass?  


It won't.  This game of passing bills and potential legislation that is DOA in the other chamber is inane, and yes, business as usual.  I am forced to reiterate my main question though, why do the Dems view a secure border as a win only for the GOP?  It's a win for every single legal US resident.  Kinda makes you question the Dems actual motivation in this regard, doesn't it?

It all comes down to perception of voters and the difference between the narrative of a policy and its reality.

Whether people are willing to admit it or not, the border has become a purely GOP policy. Even if every Democrat in the entire country agreed with a provision to help the situation at the border, the GOP would still get credit for it if it passes because they've made that situation a central position of their platform. For that reason, if Democrats gave the Republicans anything that could theoretically help the border, it would be perceived as a win for the GOP and would help bolster their voting numbers among independents.

And it simply is not the case that all Democrats agree with exactly how bad the border situation is or exactly what needs to be done. There are a fair number of democrats who view the increase of immigration into America as a direct consequence of past policies of America that led to devastation in central American countries (It doesn't really matter if its true or not). So a fair number of democrats view these immigrants and their bad situations as, at least partially, America's responsibility. So they may not see these immigrants coming to America and applying for asylum as the crisis that Republicans may see it as.

Essentially, you're asking why certain policies are coded for either the Democrats or the GOP and the simplest answer is, "because that's how they've portrayed themselves to the voters."

If you are a voter and your big thing is that you want stricter policies at the border, you vote GOP. You just do. Even if the Democrats passed this bill with no help from the Republicans (somehow), that would likely not change any border policy voters over to the Democrats. They would just applaud the GOP for pressuring the Democrats into "doing their jobs" or something like that.

It's an unfortunate state of politics that we live in, but the central focus of every politician is how to maintain their voters so that they can maintain their power. And giving your opposition a win, even if only in the perceived sense, is something that very few politicians will be willing to do when they get nothing in return.

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2024, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It won't.  This game of passing bills and potential legislation that is DOA in the other chamber is inane, and yes, business as usual.  I am forced to reiterate my main question though, why do the Dems view a secure border as a win only for the GOP?  It's a win for every single legal US resident.  Kinda makes you question the Dems actual motivation in this regard, doesn't it?

Is it, though? Sure, we think of the ability for the more nefarious types to slip through the border, but the majority crossing the border are hardly that. They are people seeking a better life. They work in positions that need to be filled but aren't because they are willing to work for less and those employing them can get by without the worker protections they would have to afford Americans because these immigrants aren't supposed to be here. They usually pay into a federal tax system that they will never see anything out of. They contribute to our economy in positive ways.

The vast majority of Democrats who oppose the policies being put forth in bills like this aren't looking for "open borders," as is often claimed. Their problem is that they see the immigration system as broken and inhumane and just putting more effort into enforcement is doing nothing to resolve the problem, instead it is exacerbating a human rights crisis that currently exists. They are looking for more resources for the asylum process and immigration courts to allow them to process immigrants more expediently, they are looking for policies aimed at making legal immigration easier and more accessible, especially from countries where our meddling with foreign policy has ****** up the country. It's not a matter of not wanting to secure the border, it is a policy disagreement on what is the problem in our immigration system. We have been continually throwing more into enforcement over the years. Hell, the size of CBP/ICE now compared to the INS of yesteryear is gigantic, but it is just a money pit that we aren't seeing the results from.

[CJD]

(02-07-2024, 02:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it, though? Sure, we think of the ability for the more nefarious types to slip through the border, but the majority crossing the border are hardly that. They are people seeking a better life. They work in positions that need to be filled but aren't because they are willing to work for less and those employing them can get by without the worker protections they would have to afford Americans because these immigrants aren't supposed to be here. They usually pay into a federal tax system that they will never see anything out of. They contribute to our economy in positive ways.

The vast majority of Democrats who oppose the policies being put forth in bills like this aren't looking for "open borders," as is often claimed. Their problem is that they see the immigration system as broken and inhumane and just putting more effort into enforcement is doing nothing to resolve the problem, instead it is exacerbating a human rights crisis that currently exists. They are looking for more resources for the asylum process and immigration courts to allow them to process immigrants more expediently, they are looking for policies aimed at making legal immigration easier and more accessible, especially from countries where our meddling with foreign policy has ****** up the country. It's not a matter of not wanting to secure the border, it is a policy disagreement on what is the problem in our immigration system. We have been continually throwing more into enforcement over the years. Hell, the size of CBP/ICE now compared to the INS of yesteryear is gigantic, but it is just a money pit that we aren't seeing the results from.

You use words much better than I do. I agree with everything you're written here.

[*pally*]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1755064824109686905

Trump didn't shut down the border


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Roy: I saw Trump make that allegation on one of his social media posts. All a president has to do is declare the border is closed, and it's closed. Well, with all due respect, that didn't happen in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. There were millions that came in during those years <a href="https://t.co/peA3TLy599">pic.twitter.com/peA3TLy599</a></p>&mdash; Acyn (@Acyn) <a href="https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1755064824109686905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 7, 2024</a></blockquote>