Why should we agree to reward sanctuary cities in latest Schumer/Biden senate bill?

[Mickeypoo]

(02-05-2024, 05:43 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Biden's way of making the jobs report look good. Leave billions of dollars of new military in Afghanistan while getting 13 service members and many who helped us behind to be killed so we would need to spend money on new military equipment. Then, spend more money for new military equipment for UKraine so more jobs needed. It is typical government waste of money (both sides do it) we can't afford.

Look closely at the bill, 60 billion + for Ukraine to help secure their border, but only 650 million (does not secure our border, still allows almost 2 million a year into US + add incentives as they will get the ability to work immediately) to secure our souther border.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/us/politics/senate-border-ukraine-deal.html

Why can't all of the bills be separate? There is no way any Republican should approve this bill in the Senate or the house, but sadly we have a whole bunch of Rhinos including McConnell who will likely vote for it.

Why not indeed...............As an Independent I really hope this bill falls flat on it's face.  It looks like nothing more then a way for the dems to shift the blame from the dems disastrous policies before an election.  It's a horrible bill.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-05-2024, 06:17 PM)pally Wrote: So "real" Republicans would rather they do nothing for the border.  I get it...they got their marching orders from Trump and now are unable to do their jobs.

The Democrats have both Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin...why don't Republicans allow a range of ideas that differ from Trump's?

The House cannot pass their ideas about the border without the help of Democrats in the Senate.  RINO or not the House needs every member of their party to be on the same page.  Expecting never to have to compromise is why House Republicans are so ineffectual.

Suppose Trump gets elected...you all still can't fix the border without Democrats...so what's the plan?

Why can't they put forward a bill that only deals with our illegal immigration issue?  Why does all that other crap have to be in there?  

News flash.......................neither side wants to fix the problem.  They could fix it in a week if they wanted to.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-05-2024, 06:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's actually much more, as you included suicides by gun in that number.  The number of gun related homicides is ~14-15k (up from previous years btw) so it's more like 8 times more deaths from fentanyl than guns.


This is really indisputable.  One of the more interesting things of late is this complete unwillingness to acknowledge any fault in the Dem or their policies.  To the point that two prominent left leaning posters here couldn't name a single Dem policy they disagreed with.  Even if you think Trump is the literal antichrist you should still be able to find fault in the Dems where it exists. It's like they believe if you acknowledge any problems on the Dem side that it equals an endorsement of Trump.  It's interestingly as cult like a behavior as they accuse the MAGA crowd of engaging in.

I am on one other forum that happens to have a politics section, but like the Bengals forum, has nothing to do with politics.  I have been saying almost word for word what I highlighted for at least 2 years and you are the ONLY other person I have ever seen post the same.  

It is exactly like you say.  it's like they think if they acknowledge any fault whatsoever in Biden/Dems it means they are supporting/admitting that Trump was right/good/something positive and that is something that just cannot happen in their minds.  No matter what, no matter how flawed the reasoning/logic.   It's so damn weird.  Trump has literally messed up some peoples brains and thought processes.  It's crazy to watch.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-05-2024, 08:55 PM)pally Wrote: Let’s see if that comes true vote Democratic in Nov.  History show that in the last 45 years Democratic administrations have better economies than Republican ones do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

4 years of Biden is enough, thanks.  I'm ready to try some different policies.  Ones that actually put America and her legal citizens first.  I'd love to go back to the Trump economy.  I had 600-800 more a month of cold hard cash in my pocket.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-06-2024, 09:58 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Easy now, someone will be along shortly to explain to you that the real problem is our immense spending on Defense and our insensitivity towards those in need...

Lol.  Spend more on defense and border security/deportation and much, much less on sanctuary cities and other countries.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2024, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm genuinely curious because I keep seeing this be repeated: what tools are at Biden's fingertips to fix this issue?

The way I understand the current situation at the border is that those CBP is allowing in and not deporting, actually aren't "illegal" immigrants. They are seeking asylum, something the administration has a requirement to process under existing law. The unfortunate reality is that the system for processing asylum claims is extremely backlogged and underfunded resulting in delays which results in uncertainty for migrants as well as difficulty keeping track of those in the process for ICE and other agencies. Biden and the administration are upholding the law; the issue is that the law and the resources we have to enforce it do not meet the demand we are seeing.

The international rules for asylum state you must apply for asylum in the first "safe" nation that you arrive in.  Mexico is considered such a nation.  Therefore literally every single person applying for asylum at our southern border who is not Mexican should be automatically denied asylum and returned to Mexico to properly apply there.  

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/06/us-mexico-border-crossing-migrant-statistics

Around 70%, if not more, of asylum seekers are from countries other than Mexico.  Automatic NO, return to Mexico and you're 100% complying with international law on this issue.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2024, 10:19 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I am on one other forum that happens to have a politics section, but like the Bengals forum, has nothing to do with politics.  I have been saying almost word for word what I highlighted for at least 2 years and you are the ONLY other person I have ever seen post the same.  

It is exactly like you say.  it's like they think if they acknowledge any fault whatsoever in Biden/Dems it means they are supporting/admitting that Trump was right/good/something positive and that is something that just cannot happen in their minds.  No matter what, no matter how flawed the reasoning/logic.   It's so damn weird.  Trump has literally messed up some peoples brains and thought processes.  It's crazy to watch.

Thank you.  One very underutilized skill in my profession is understanding human behavior and being able to see things from another's perspective.  I learned very early in my career how important this skill was an really strove to hone it.  What I've observed since 2015 is a commitment from most people to a strictly binary way of thinking.  Subtlety and nuance are utterly dead for much of the population.  I had a very long term friend completely cut ties with me because I stated that Trump actually had a point about immigration.  The simple act of agreeing with Trump on any subject was taken as a full throated endorsement of Trump and everything he stands for/believes.

You see it here on a daily basis.  If you dare not attack Trump on every single issue you are a Trump supporter/defender.  If you're not in lockstep with the far left you're a secret Republican.  This is why I most enjoy discussion with Bel, Hollo and others (sorry if you didn't get mentioned but deserve to be) even though we often disagree.  Those posters are capable of understanding a position even if they don't personally agree with it.  We need more of it around here, and in general, that's for damned sure.

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2024, 12:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The international rules for asylum state you must apply for asylum in the first "safe" nation that you arrive in.  Mexico is considered such a nation.  Therefore literally every single person applying for asylum at our southern border who is not Mexican should be automatically denied asylum and returned to Mexico to properly apply there.  

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/06/us-mexico-border-crossing-migrant-statistics

Around 70%, if not more, of asylum seekers are from countries other than Mexico.  Automatic NO, return to Mexico and you're 100% complying with international law on this issue.

You mean like this? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-administration-to-limit-asylum-to-migrants-who-pass-through-a-3rd-nation

Fact Sheet on CLP from DHS: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/05/11/fact-sheet-circumvention-lawful-pathways-final-rule

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2024, 01:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mean like this? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-administration-to-limit-asylum-to-migrants-who-pass-through-a-3rd-nation

Fact Sheet on CLP from DHS: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/05/11/fact-sheet-circumvention-lawful-pathways-final-rule

Exactly that.  Which begs the question, why did he wait three years to try and implement this?

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2024, 02:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly that.  Which begs the question, why did he wait three years to try and implement this?

Title 42 being in place meant this wasn't needed, plus when Trump tried something similar the courts shot it down. This policy is still in jeopardy in the courts, but essentially when the Title 42 restrictions ended, this took effect. That was the reasoning for the timing.

And two years, BTW. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2024, 02:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Title 42 being in place meant this wasn't needed, plus when Trump tried something similar the courts shot it down. This policy is still in jeopardy in the courts, but essentially when the Title 42 restrictions ended, this took effect. That was the reasoning for the timing.

And two years, BTW. 

The courts shutting it down is far less of an issue when you have a SCOTUS very likely to be favorably inclined to not only stay the initial order but fast track hearing the matter.  Two years is still quite a long time btw.  Interesting that a federal court would strike down a move so clearly rooted in the law.

[Luvnit2]

(02-06-2024, 02:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Title 42 being in place meant this wasn't needed, plus when Trump tried something similar the courts shot it down. This policy is still in jeopardy in the courts, but essentially when the Title 42 restrictions ended, this took effect. That was the reasoning for the timing.

And two years, BTW. 

True or false

Did Biden immediately reverse Trump policies for deterring/stopping illegal immigrants from coming to the border? Did Biden stop the Trump policy sending illegal immigrants back to Mexico to await asylum claims? Did Biden have control of the house and the senate in 2021 and 2022 to change immigration laws? Can Biden do anything right now to secure the border?

Please answer each question honestly, yes of no, true or false.

BTW,.. yes Biden has been POTUS for almost 3 years, nit 2 years.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-06-2024, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you.  One very underutilized skill in my profession is understanding human behavior and being able to see things from another's perspective.  I learned very early in my career how important this skill was an really strove to hone it.  What I've observed since 2015 is a commitment from most people to a strictly binary way of thinking.  Subtlety and nuance are utterly dead for much of the population.  I had a very long term friend completely cut ties with me because I stated that Trump actually had a point about immigration.  The simple act of agreeing with Trump on any subject was taken as a full throated endorsement of Trump and everything he stands for/believes.

You see it here on a daily basis.  If you dare not attack Trump on every single issue you are a Trump supporter/defender.  If you're not in lockstep with the far left you're a secret Republican.  This is why I most enjoy discussion with Bel, Hollo and others (sorry if you didn't get mentioned but deserve to be) even though we often disagree.  Those posters are capable of understanding a position even if they don't personally agree with it.  We need more of it around here, and in general, that's for damned sure.

It's too bad people would end a friendship over something like that.  One of my friends has the BLM fist sticker, Bernie sticker etc, on his Guitar case and he is pretty liberal.  We simply don't talk about politics.  He's a great guy and a great friend.  Everyone has their own thoughts and beliefs.  Even when two people are on the same page it still won't be 100% agreement.

I come off pretty harsh on here, but honestly I am willing to compromise on ANY issue.  Even if I personally have a hard line stance on an issue  I would compromise in a situation where policy or law has to be made.

When Trump was in and he and repubs tried to make a deal to give amnesty to the dreamers in exchange for real immigration reform I was on board with that even though I personally was not for any amnesty.  I thought it was a fair deal and would fix future issues.

I'm just sick of the illegal immigration issue at this point and that's why I am so harsh.  I just don't care anymore.  Send them all back.  I don't care.  Show pictures of crying kid illegals being taken out of school.......I just don't care anymore.  This is totally insane.  We are a Country and we have borders and we just want to let the rest of the world flood in.  It's just totally nuts.

With all that said, would I be willing to sit down and compromise if a real solution was going to be put in place.  Yup, I sure would.  This border bill is a joke and is nothing more then a ploy by the dems to deflect to the repubs because the dems are getting killed by their own malfeasance.  

I don't like trump or Biden, but Trump had some good policies that were working and his foreign policy was great imo.  If it's between Trumparoo and Dementia Man, that's an easy choice.  I don't vote with feelz.  And if Biden had come in and done a good job instead of going far left nutso I'd be voting for him in 24.  I don't vote for people based on a letter, I vote for people based on their actions and policies.

Anyway, I need to stop typing so much and go back to lurking more.  lol.  Have a great day!   

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2024, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The courts shutting it down is far less of an issue when you have a SCOTUS very likely to be favorably inclined to not only stay the initial order but fast track hearing the matter.  Two years is still quite a long time btw.  Interesting that a federal court would strike down a move so clearly rooted in the law.

Right now it is in limbo with a court of appeals. A district court vacated the rule, then the court of appeals put a stay on that order and hasn't completed their process, yet. That was the status as of August. So, the rule is in effect and is currently being enforced. You can find that information on the DHS website.

And again, the reason for the delay in the rule was because it wasn't actually necessary until Title 42 was ended. Title 42 prevented the need because it effectively ended asylum intakes, but with the lifting of Title 42 (something that had to happen based on our point in the pandemic) the Biden administration put this rule in place. The main thing to keep in mind is that what you are saying they should do, they have been doing. Which goes to my original question: what could the Biden administration be doing that they are not to stop the current immigration issue? What are they not enforcing? What policy levers are they ignoring?

[*pally*]

The one thing we have to remember in this discussion is that people who claim asylum are not here illegally.. US law allows for those who are undocumented or who cross the border illegally to request asylum. Again by current law, they are admitted until they receive a hearing which right now takes years to happen.

The bill, rejected on Trump's orders, significantly toughened the requirements for claiming asylum, allowed for the immediate rejection of many, and added administrative personnel to shorten the time before a hearing to a mandated 6 months. But hey, can't let Biden have a win.

Executive orders aren't binding. Laws are.

[Luvnit2]

(02-06-2024, 12:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:
The international rules for asylum state you must apply for asylum in the first "safe" nation that you arrive in.  Mexico is considered such a nation.  Therefore literally every single person applying for asylum at our southern border who is not Mexican should be automatically denied asylum and returned to Mexico to properly apply there.  

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/06/us-mexico-border-crossing-migrant-statistics

Around 70%, if not more, of asylum seekers are from countries other than Mexico.  Automatic NO, return to Mexico and you're 100% complying with international law on this issue.

Yes laws for asylum already exist, but Biden and Mayorkas are not enforcing those laws. Thus, they created an invasion the likes we have never seen with border patrol stating they believe 15 million illegal (yes illegal, they should be in Mexico) immigrants in our country.

Now we have Denver bussing people to Chicago and NYC, from sanctuary city to sanctuary city all created by the non enforcement of the existing law by Biden and Mayorkas.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/800-migrant-families-booted-denver-shelters-city-nears-breaking-point

800 migrant families being booted from Denver shelters as city nears breaking point

The sanctuary city has been struggling to stretch its limited resources to support the growing number of migrants in the city

The city of Denver has begun ejecting around 800 migrant families from shelters as it scales back on aid for illegal immigrants. 


On Monday, about 140 families were booted out from temporary accommodations in Colorado's capital, with the remaining 660 families expected to be removed over the next few weeks, according to city officials. 

The sanctuary city has been struggling to stretch its limited resources to support the growing number of migrants in the city. Texas has transported thousands of migrants to sanctuary cities like Denver, to showcase the problems border states face when migrants flood their cities. 

With overcrowded shelters and overrun hospitals, Denver state officials have begun enforcing a limit on the amount of time that migrants can stay in state-provided rooms to accommodate the daily influx of individuals, according to a report from NBC News. 

As of last week, Denver was sheltering 3,813 people with more waves of illegal immigrants still descending on the city. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, a Democrat, said the city is at full capacity.

"We have filled every single hotel room that we have available in the city and county of Denver," Johnston said during a town hall meeting last week.

"Now we have the terrible decision that if we don’t start exiting folks, we will have 250 folks that will arrive today or the day after who don’t have anywhere to go at night," Johnston said.

Johnston told Fox News last week that the city was "very close" to breaking point due to the crisis.

The city had initially paused shelter exits due to the colder weather, but due to space and timing, that pause will end this week, according to 9News. Previously, migrants with children were allowed to stay for 37 days,


"As of Monday, Feb. 5, 2024, Denver has supported 38,380 migrants from the southern border at a cost of more than $42 million," a statement on the city’s website reads. 


"This influx of migrants is straining capacity, and based on current projections, could force the city to cut as much as $180 million from its annual budget," the city said in a press release. 

Yoli Casas, of the nonprofit ViVe Wellness, said the number of migrants arriving in the city is unprecedented. ViVe Wellness is helping the city address its migrant crisis. 

"We have never seen so many people come and so many people in the last year… so Feb. 5 for me is a date that hurts a lot because it’s a date that, for various reasons, we’re full," Casas told 9News. "There’s just no more space."

The city has also been helping migrants leave the city by purchasing bus tickets. In January alone, the city purchased more than 2,000 tickets, sending people to other destinations within the United States, with most going to New York City and Chicago, according to Denverite.

The influx of migrants has also put the city’s health system at a breaking point.  

About 8,000 illegal immigrants recorded about 20,000 visits to Denver Health last year, receiving services such as emergency room treatment, primary care, dental care and childbirth. The visits contributed to the system being in the red by about $22 million.

Denver passed laws to become a sanctuary city, but it doesn't include a right-to-shelter provision, which means there is no official policy that compels the local government to provide shelter indefinitely. 

[Luvnit2]

(02-06-2024, 04:50 PM)pally Wrote: The one thing we have to remember in this discussion is that people who claim asylum are not here illegally..  US law allows for those who are undocumented or who cross the border illegally to request asylum.  Again by current law, they are admitted until they receive a hearing which right now takes years to happen.

The bill, rejected on Trump's orders, significantly toughened the requirements for claiming asylum, allowed for the immediate rejection of many, and added administrative personnel to shorten the time before a hearing to a mandated 6 months.  But hey, can't let Biden have a win.

Executive orders aren't binding.  Laws are.

I will ask again, why did Genocide Joe fail to have the house and senate take this issue up immediately when he had both chamber versus immediately removing Trump immigration policies?


Law exists as SSF has stated numerous times on asylum, frst safe country they come to (Mexico), they apply there for asylum. That is the law so they are illegal immigrants if they came through Mexico


I will also ask why did Schumer and Biden not work with Johnson on his immigration bill? Seems to me your arguments and attacks on Trump will be in vein, Biden has the laws now to enforce the border and Democrats refuse to negotiate with the house, now Johnson is refusing the Democrats bill and rightly so.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-05-2024, 05:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Actually, 35% of the aid sent to Ukraine has been monetary.  But what does it matter if it's cash, weapons, our training, etc.  It's all funded by money from American taxpayers...

I think I mentioned this quite awhile back when we were first doing the initial aid packages to Ukraine and someone else was talking about the billions we were sending them.

With the exception of some of the more advanced precision guided missiles and such, the vast majority of military weapons and vehicles we've given Ukraine are our outdated hand-me-downs that were either in storage are were heading towards storage because they're being replaced by newer things (just because they're in storage doesn't mean they aren't still costing us money to maintain).

The Bradley IFVs they sent for example were the M2A2 ODS. Meanwhile we started making M2A3s in 2000 and we've now got some M2A4s. We sent them vehicles that are 2 generations old. They had upgrades since they were made, but it doesn't change that fact.

We sent a ton of M1113s and those are upgraded Vietnam vechicles. The most "modern" version were created in 1987 and we haven't bought any new ones since 2007 and we're working on replacing them.

Even the 31 Abrams tanks we sent were A1s which haven't been made since 1992. Meanwhile the Marine Corps just shut down their heavy armor and sent some 450 more modern versions to the Army as part of their restructuring and we're working on producing a new generation to replace the M1A2s which have had 20 years of extensive upgrades themselves (and also are producing a whole new series of don't-call-it-a-light-tank M10s).

All of those vehicles aren't being Kelly Blue Booked for wear-and-tear when they talk about the value of aid being sent. If it cost them that much to build it and that much to upgrade it, it doesn't matter it was 15 years ago and has been treated like a government mule since. It's still that much in aid. Lol.. same as when we send a couple million bullets, we just pull that stuff from pre-positioned storage around the world (same way that we gave military aid to Israel, it was already there, we just opened up the doors). We already had most of those vehicles and ammo in a storage depot in like Poland or something.

- - - - - -

Even that monetary aid isn't particularly truthful either. A lot of those are us "giving" them money so they can immediately buy things from us. It's basically just a roundabout way of the government paying itself and making money flow through it's industries. It's a method to keep money flowing around and keeping people working due to the demand. 

Just like how many countries are buying grain from Ukraine and then Ukraine then sends them that money for more supplies. We're sending them money, but a lot of it just comes back into our economy.

- - - - - -

Ultimately a weaker Russia and Putin is good news for us, and as long as we (and NATO) keep the fighting out of their/our land, out of their/our farmland, out of their/our factories, and out of their/our populace, it's ultimately significantly cheaper for us to give our hand-me-downs and surplus to them to do the job for us.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-06-2024, 06:32 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think I mentioned this quite awhile back when we were first doing the initial aid packages to Ukraine and someone else was talking about the billions we were sending them.

With the exception of some of the more advanced precision guided missiles and such, the vast majority of military weapons and vehicles we've given Ukraine are our outdated hand-me-downs that were either in storage are were heading towards storage because they're being replaced by newer things (just because they're in storage doesn't mean they aren't still costing us money to maintain).

The Bradley IFVs they sent for example were the M2A2 ODS. Meanwhile we started making M2A3s in 2000 and we've now got some M2A4s. We sent them vehicles that are 2 generations old. They had upgrades since they were made, but it doesn't change that fact.

We sent a ton of M1113s and those are upgraded Vietnam vechicles. The most "modern" version were created in 1987 and we haven't bought any new ones since 2007 and we're working on replacing them.

Even the 31 Abrams tanks we sent were A1s which haven't been made since 1992. Meanwhile the Marine Corps just shut down their heavy armor and sent some 450 more modern versions to the Army as part of their restructuring and we're working on producing a new generation to replace the M1A2s which have had 20 years of extensive upgrades themselves (and also are producing a whole new series of don't-call-it-a-light-tank M10s).

All of those vehicles aren't being Kelly Blue Booked for wear-and-tear when they talk about the value of aid being sent. If it cost them that much to build it and that much to upgrade it, it doesn't matter it was 15 years ago and has been treated like a government mule since. It's still that much in aid. Lol.. same as when we send a couple million bullets, we just pull that stuff from pre-positioned storage around the world (same way that we gave military aid to Israel, it was already there, we just opened up the doors). We already had most of those vehicles and ammo in a storage depot in like Poland or something.

- - - - - -

Even that monetary aid isn't particularly truthful either. A lot of those are us "giving" them money so they can immediately buy things from us. It's basically just a roundabout way of the government paying itself and making money flow through it's industries. It's a method to keep money flowing around and keeping people working due to the demand. 

Just like how many countries are buying grain from Ukraine and then Ukraine then sends them that money for more supplies. We're sending them money, but a lot of it just comes back into our economy.

- - - - - -

Ultimately a weaker Russia and Putin is good news for us, and as long as we (and NATO) keep the fighting out of their/our land, out of their/our farmland, out of their/our factories, and out of their/our populace, it's ultimately significantly cheaper for us to give our hand-me-downs and surplus to them to do the job for us.

I get what you're saying about the US Military upgrading their own equipment, but sending it to Ukraine does not make it "free", the American tax payers still paid for that stuff.  That could be shit that the US sends to Mexico to battle the catels...

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-06-2024, 08:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I get what you're saying about the US Military upgrading their own equipment, but sending it to Ukraine does not make it "free", the American tax payers still paid for that stuff.  That could be shit that the US sends to Mexico to battle the catels...

Never said it was free, but it's not costing us anything extra either. It already was paid for decades ago in many cases. 

At this point some of that gear the options are give it away to a third world country who increasingly don't want it (they still have to pay for the maintenance and operation of it) because they're buying cheap new stuff from China, or put it into deep storage where we still need to pay for upkeeping equipment that isn't particularly useful for us anymore.

Shit we send to Mexico to battle cartels often just becomes resources for the cartels. Not to mention I don't think there's any demand for IFVs with 20-30mm cannons and MBTs with 120mm smoothbore cannons and jet engines. Nor do they need Patriot missile batteries or precision laser guided bombs. I don't think that's the kind of fighting they're doing down there.