Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Biden asked for the resources to legally deport immigrants who don't meet the standard from day one of his presidency. Guess who didn't fund it?
Trump's either suddenly going to get the funding Biden asked for, or simply ignore the law. I suspect both.
@goaded
Republicans Passed House Resolution 2, where democrats refuses to even look at it.
Instead Democrats, 2 open borders RINOS, and Biden pushed their own large immigration bill developed in secrete and asked everyone to vote on it before reading it. After reading it we find
1: It hands out work permits like candy the primary draw of even more illegal aliens.
2: Gives Illegal immigrant friendly overloaded D. C. Court to assure even longer 'sanctuary' in the US with higher likely hood of being allowed to stay.
3: Adds border agents but only for processing of new illegal aliens.
4: Sets high threshold for shutting down the border near current catastrophic levels, and then only permits its use after most of the year is over.
5: Does in fact add more money but only after 2028 so you can forget anything under either president.
In short its designed to make the problem soo much worse, because really its about packing the country with cheap labor for the businesses that own democrats and RINOs.
@monorprise Why would Republicans in the House expect something so Republican to pass into law with a Democratic Senate and president? The obvious answer is that they didn't.
@monorprise Why would they? It was a laundry list of Republican priorities, and Republicans had lost two thirds of the government and barely held the third.
If you want to get anything done, you have to be willing to compromise, and unlike most on the right seem to think, compromise does not mean demanding everything you want and giving up nothing.
@goaded Do you have any idea how American Government works? There are 3+ levels and 3 + branches on the federal level. Republicans had just won 1 half of 1 branch. The very house which is suppose to propose spending bills. It is the Senate's job to review, and amend.
A senate democrats only control because of shenanigans in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
So no Republicans Took the house on an agenda to control the border. They had a mandate to propose such measures. The share of the federal goverment is not relevant but if you want to say the Court is republican controlled then republicans Control, then technically Republicans control 1.5 branches.
@monorprise Those "shenanigans" were called elections. Stop lying. And I was clearly talking about the elected parts of government. You're right about Republicans controlling SCOTUS; that's down to Republicans forcing through nominees that would never have been confirmed without their unilateral changes to the rules.
If you want to get something passed into law, you have to propose something that will pass both the House and the Senate and be signed into law by the president. Passing something in the House that you know won't go anywhere is just grandstanding and not an attempt to solve a problem.
@goaded
If the Senate wanted to propose a new border law they should have modified the house bill already passed long before.
Instead they get around the constitutional requirement of the house originating funding bill by hollowing out an unrelated bill to unnecessarily "Start from scratch". That shows you how little interest they had in both the Constitution and compromise
@monorprise It's worked that way for decades, if not centuries, and it's constitutional. What would be the point in modifying "the house bill already passed", which was never going to result in a compromise? The Senate came up with a bipartisan compromise that could pass both chambers and be signed into law by the president with just a few Republican votes in the House and Senate. Until Trump told them he'd rather have the border to campaign on, so improving the situation at the border stopped being a priority.
@goaded I have no doubts about our current and past elected leader's contempt for the limits of their own power and willingness to disregard any rule that won't be enforced.
The point is the House has the moral high ground in this respect as well as in the contents of the disastrous immgration bill.
@monorprise No, the House doesn't have the high moral ground. The Republican leadership had a choice between "1,500 more border security agents and officers, 100 more immigration judges, 4,300 more asylum officers and new policies “so they resolve cases in six months instead of six years.”", not to mention giving presidents the right to close the border if too many people are coming over, or NOTHING, and THEY CHOSE NOTHING and no vote even though it would only take a few Republican votes to pass the bipartisan bill into law.
And they did it because Trump wants chaos at the border because it's practically the only thing he can run on.
It's craven, and it gives the lie to their claims that something must be done about the border.
@goaded
Those border agents were desk workers processing asylum claims not border agents, as are the others.
The power to shut down the border also already existed Now, not most of the way into the year after current levels. Joe Biden himself already utilized this power on the northern border recently just as Trump did on both borders.
So no the bill does nothing but make the problem far worse by rewarding illegal aliens with faster more friendly processing, work visas, and new predictably high limits that would be used to undermine existing limits.
The house had already had a border bill HR2 which actually addresses the issue.
@monorprise Bullshit. "1,500 more border security agents and officers, 100 more immigration judges, 4,300 more asylum officers and new policies “
The 1,500 would have been border active, the 4,300 would have been bureaucrats.
How is it a "reward" to be thrown out of the country more quickly?
@goaded
Those were desk jobs processing illegal aliens like an increasing number of existing border patrol agents are doing. The Asylum Officers are anther kind of desk job in the federal bureaucracy. Both of which could easily be culminated if congress just abolished the highly abused asylum policy.
Nobody who set foot in Mexico is entitled to an Asylum even under the existing bad agreements made with the UN. As such we need almost no asylum Officer or judges. If your at a border point of entry it's an automatic denial. With people who fly in being per-cleared on the forign air port that leaves only the very small number of people who made it here on small ocean boats and can prove where they came from.
Again this bill would make things far far worse!
@monorprise You're just going to continue posting bullshit, aren't you? "More enforcement is worse." What do you think the US should do, shoot to kill anyone coming across the Rio Grande? If they're not valid asylum seekers, they will be deported.
@goaded I am simply pointing out what a serous attempt to deal with the unprecedented crisis via a change in law would represent, and how congress has needlessly created this mess for themselves and the states.
If someone enters your property without intention to leave in Texas like many if not most other states you can shoot them. A man's home is his castle and he has the absolute right to control who is there. This is settled law.
If congress wasn't treating theses invaders with velvant gloves, food, shelter, asylum, effective work permits and hand outs at great expense to our States and their people.
If they Instead treated theses invaders as most other countries do, almost none of them would come. Countless thousands of them would still be alive today that are not simply because the environment and the gangs killed them before we ever found them.
So yes there is a very high price for not considering human nature when you enact bleeding heart polices at the expense of everyone else.
@monorprise If it's such an "unprecedented crisis", why did Republicans decide to do nothing about it? The American people aren't going to stand for shooting innocent people at the border, and nor is congress.
The fifth and fourteenth amendments ensure that people get due process. Republicans can either speed up that process, or leave it as it is. They chose the latter.
You love the constitution, except when you don't. That's bullshit.
@goaded The fact they criminally crossed the border at a non-port of entry without permission proves they are not innocent in anyway.
Do that at a military base or otherwise private property and you have no expectation to not get shot.
As for what people 1000 miles away from those of us who have to live with the social, economic, environmental, and political effects of this invasion think. I really don't care.
They have no right to tell people elsewhere who do they have to "deal with it" because someone 1000+ miles away living in a gated community has invent some selectively applied and defined concept of "human rights" which cares more about the invader than the invaded.
Frankly this is why more and more of us would prefer a separate goverment. If you want them to destroy your environment, your economy, and your socialite Then import them directly to YOUR community.
@monorprise Who said they were innocent? I said they were entitled, under the constitution, to due process. That due process can take years, or months. Republicans clearly prefer years, so they can keep moaning about it. You support the constitution except when you don't. Typical.
@goaded You seem to be confusing our hand picked politicians in black robes ideological 'definitions' and demands for our constitution. Due process of law for a forign national caught in the act red handed is not very long or complicated. Nor is that illegal alien anymore entitled to remain in violation of the same law while they wait for a judge to get around to their case than anyone else is.
They can wait in their own country.
@monorprise Everyone on US soil is allowed to wait until their case is decided; Republicans don't care if that takes six years, if it means Biden doesn't solve the problem they call existential.
@goaded
I unlike you I don't pretend to speak for all republicans even if I voted for a few of them and deal with their actually implemented policies.
In general the ones i voted for are very much against the lack of a right to a speedy trial, but part of that problem comes from pretending people who were caught red handed in an open and shut case are entitled to enormously time consuming and expensive trials 90% of them never show up for.
Frankly everyone claiming an asylum after the first 50k are granted were suppose to be rejected outright because it doesn't matter if they are eligible as congress didn't authorize more than 50k.
The same goes for every single one at the southern border as they could not have gotten there unless they had set foot in Mexico a safe country and therefore not eligible for U. S. Asylum.
Instead they are given what they want while we proceed thou an expensive phony trial that legally can have no other end which is why 90%+ don't even bother to show up for it.
This is not due process of law. This is deliberate and criminal bureaucratic filibustering abuse, no they have zero right to wait in U. S. soil outside of a prison when they came from Mexican soil. Indeed the 90% flight risk makes the bail they should be required to post to get out of said prison huge. But that aspect of due process is not happening either.
Instead lawyers both in black robes and suites get rich on the taxpayer gaming the system to benefit democrats and their big business doners looking to keep wages down.
@monorprise Who do you think I "pretend" to speak for? I speak for myself.
I also point out that Republicans are the ones voting against making it easier and quicker to reject people who don't qualify.
@goaded A mere 30% more personnel dedicated to said processing of invaders isn't going to help, when 90% of them don't even show up to said courts regardless once released into this country.
Those work visa and moving the jurisdiction to the D. C. rather than 5th circuit will make those judges work even more pointless as it draw an even larger share of the world's population to come knowing they will be soo rewarded and might even be let go regardless by said democrat dominated court. Again among the 10% that are dumb enough to actually show up. The rest are already working under the table making plenty of money to send back home.
Anther Federal policy we subsidize via Federal reserve subsided transfers to Latin America. Its actually shocking its cheaper to send money south than it is in the USA because Politicians in D. C want this invasion and have for decades.
@monorprise "A mere 30% more personnel..." That Republicans rejected in favour of no more personnel. I'm pretty sure 30%'s better than nothing, aren't you?
@goaded If The senate had merely proposed to increase the number of agents b 30% we could hardly object to that beyond the open that it might leave a little more agents available to actually man the border. But this bill included the mentioned poison pills that would serve only to make the situation vastly worse.
In light of that fact an additional 30% to deal with the mere 10% released into this country that are dumb enough to show up for trial makes no difference.
@monorprise Yes, why bother letting the Democrats have enough rope to prove their ideas won't work? It couldn't be because you think they would.
@goaded
Democrats are welcome to all the robe they want in their states Just not my robe in my state.
The catastrophe of their Current experiment of Joe Biden's policies is flooding my City and my state with forign aliens. 6-10 million in just the last few years.
Aliens who compete for the artificially limited supply of housing and over-regulated supply of food further driving up the cost of living, while they drive down the market value of any unskilled job.
This is the rope they took from Donald Trump when they lied and/or cheated their way into office promising to some how just "do better".
If the same man who already via executive action instigated the same large scale invasion want to propose actual laws all but guarantee to expand it as described. Im sorry we really would be far better off waiting until he is replaced in 4 or 8 year. Then solidifying his bad policy in law we are unlikely to reverse.
@monorprise "flooding my City and my state with forign aliens. 6-10 million in just the last few years" Bullshit.
@monorprise You're claiming the population of New York City has come to your city and state. That sounds unlikely, to put it politely.
@monorprise That's not what you said: "flooding my City and my state with forign aliens. 6-10 million in just the last few years".
@goaded
1: I never said which state was mine.
2: Regardless that statement would be valid expression of any of them, as there are still no borders among the states to prevent this 6-10 million invaders from going to any state or city.
3: I have noticed a dramatic change in the linguistic and cultural demographics of my city since Biden opened the flood gates. It has become distinctly non-American.
@monorprise It doesn't matter which state you're in. 6-10 million "forign aliens" would be well over a quarter of any state but California or Texas, and 10 million is more than the population of all but eight states, most of which aren't on the border.
It's not a valid statement because you're fearmongering. 8 million people "flooding my City and my state" sounds a lot scarier than "8 million have come to the country". Even if the numbers are accurate, which I very much doubt.
You think anyone who approves of anything since the 13th amendment is un-American.
@goaded Ignoring this is not what was being said, Its quite likely 6 million had at least passed thou Texas in the last few years.
Most of the flood however tends to settle around major urban areas looking for housing and work like most americans.
I don't have a problem with the 15th, 22th, 25th, or 27th amendment.
Of the amendments I think were bad ideas 26th, 24th, and 23rd were all passed by the idiot generation of the 1960's during an era of leftist media monopoly The 21st and 19th were regarding unnecessary and failed federal power on prohibition.
20th was tinkering with the so called lame duck session thus reducing the time to deal with election controversies. 19th should have been left to the states.
The final 2 were among the worse with the 16th giving the federal goverment enormously abusive power with direct control of the individual via the tax code, and the 17th being worse of them all in breaking the federal system.
By comparison the 14th amendment was just grossly illresponsable in how it was written.
@monorprise Why not support the government sending people who don't qualify for asylum back? Over 600,000 in the last year. A 30% larger workforce would presumably allow for another 200,000.
@monorprise They only have resources to deport that many at a time, which is why Biden asked for more resources from Congress. Frequently. From day 1 of his presidency.
@goaded They only have the resources to process thou their absurd legal process that many. They could deport the ones coming from Mexico immediately knowing they don't qualify in this country for an asylum. Rather than release them into this country where they want to earn higher wages while waiting years for a 'court' to become available to tell them.
Congressional democrats and frankly Biden created this problem both in creating such absurd laws but also enforcing them in such a way that rewarded them with what they wanted in a chance to earn higher American wages and services for a while regardless.
Trump demonstrated this fact with remain in Mexico policy, most of them stooped because its not worth it.
@monorprise What laws changed since Trump was in office?
@monorprise So no law was changed, and Biden ended up having to continue with the wall because Congress wouldn't re-allocate the funds.
@goaded Congress has been unwilling to change the law in any significant way for decades because democrats and republicans want to change it in opposite directions. With major factions in both parties having opposing interest as well.
In general rich want cheap labor and working class want higher wages and culturally undestandbale neighbors which the rich also want but the get via price warriors and walls.
This keeps either party from effectively enforcing the borders as the rich bribe the executives and top congressmen and the people won't vote for aminsty.
Trump ended this relationship for the first time in decades because he didn't require the bribes and so he built the wall and implemented remain in Mexico. All of which drove wages for low skilled Americans up at the fastest rate ever.
@monorprise "All of which drove wages for low skilled Americans up at the fastest rate ever. " Show me.
@monorprise Sorry, I missed your response. It's a joke.
"Even cherry picking Obama’s last three years and ignoring the 2009 recession"? Most growth comes after a recession. He was in office for 8 years, unlike Trump.
This is supposed to show how much better Trump was than Obama?
@monorprise I was hoping it would show up better for other people. I went to the source: https://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpswktab5.htm
I think the image was Employed full time, Wage and salary workers, 16 years and over, since around 2008. Very steady increase since the end of the Bush recession until covid.
I'm sure you and the author of that piece will be giving Biden the credit he's due for increasing wages in that segment of the population even faster than during Trump's term.
Usual weekly earnings (first decile), Employed full time, Wage and salary workers, 16 years and over. 2000-2024 (the bottom white line is 300, the top is 600):
Some self-deportation is going to be necessary.
Ah, yes, the latest Republican disinformation; the woman who was abused in Mexico during the Bush administration. We're supposed to believe that it was in the US because of President Biden. If you like cheap food, illegal migration is needed in the US.
You didn't answer the question: What would be the point in paying traffickers lots of money if you're likely to be back out of the US (and with a record that will stop you from returning) in six months or six weeks, rather than six years?
More employees equals more people excluded from the country. Why don't you want that?
@goaded: It's a false economy and the lower costs never materialize. And you are neither a US citizen for live in the US.
The labor force participation rate in the US is not high. There is no need for illegals and the huge additional costs they bring. It's been the same in Germany, so don't pretend that you don't know that.
You know the answer to your question already. And it's beyond irrelevant- no one cares about the finances of people who have no business in being in the US illegally and send large remittances back to their home countries.
@goaded: Unsurprisingly, you are completely unaware that there are visas for farmworkers. And you seem unaware that the overwhelming majority of illegals do not "pick vegetables".
The illegals never pay back their hospital bills or the rest of the stuff they're given. And you're apparently also unaware that illegals do sometimes get green cards through marriage or through family, which does make them eligible for Social Security. The ones who got amnestied in 1986 sure collect Social Security today as well. Illegals also commit a lot of fraud with child tax credits.
The illegals only benefit the wealthiest.
How is it going with your illegals, goaded? Including the "tolerated" ones?
So, none of them in the last 40 years could expect to collect on their social security, I stand corrected. How much more does it cost to employ someone legal?
The point of the question "What would be the point in paying traffickers lots of money if you're likely to be back out of the US (and with a record that will stop you from returning) in six months or six weeks, rather than six years?" is that reducing the likelihood of being able to stay for a long time makes it less likely that people will pay traffickers to get there and less immigration.
Immigrants benefit everyone, but the government should be cracking down on employers, not their employees, if they're undocumented.
@goaded: Whether illegals pay traffickers to get to the US is irrelevant- the illegals impose the same costs on society. And the decision to use traffickers has nothing to do with ROI.
It's fallacious to conflate legal immigrants who start businesses with illegals who soak up social services and send most of what they make back home in remittances that don't benefit the US economy. Mass migration isn't needed, and the relatively modest numbers of people who would actually benefit the economy are going to be absorbed. 10 million illegals coming within a short span of time who can't always be housed permanently are not going to be.
Again, they're primarily collecting on Social Security now (the group legalized in 1986)- as are/will those illegals who end up receiving green cards. We all know how badly the Democrats want to amnesty ALL illegals, and there, puff, up in smoke would go even the putative benefits of having illegals paying into Social Security some of the time.
The correct question to ask is whether any savings to the employer is passed on to their customers, because the actual cost of employing illegals is significantly passed on to society when the illegals use the hospital emergency room and other social services.
Why should people working illegally in the US not be punished for it? They are also violating US laws. But, yes, penalize their employers, absolutely.
@goaded: The interests of the illegals is not relevant here- they aren't supposed to be allowed to enter and stay at all. But the likelihood of deportation is very low.
At any rate, as we learned back in 2015 in Europe, even when the odds of staying are low, the illegals will come, thinking it will be different for them, and besides, look at all the free things...
New York City spends $387 a day not including medical care on its illegals, few of whom want to leave such a generous sanctuary city (sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities).
@goaded: All of the tools needed to deport the illegals have been in place in US law for decades. The bill is not bipartisan and would allow a large number of illegals to enter. Biden has done everything he can to illegally open the border and deliberately let millions of illegals in- no one in their right mind believes he wants to deport them.
thehill.com/.../
As a foreigner, you obviously do not have the best interests of the US at heart.
And you refuse to answer how the illegals are doing in the country you claim to live in- open borders don't work there either.
@goaded: No matter how many times you distort reality, you're still wrong. And you have zero idea of how Congress works (plus I doubt you'd have a clue as to who is conservative and who isn't) and what "bipartisan" actually means. Here's a hint- it doesn't mean you get a couple of Senators aboard and then call it "bipartisan"- bipartisan legislature passes with large majorities. And did the bill in the Senate get past cloture?
The illegals provide no benefits, only costs. And that is the case in every country.
Republican Senator James Lankford, look him up.
So, you'd admit that the bill to fund Ukraine and Israel is bipartisan, since it passed the Senate 70 votes to 29? This one despite Trump being against it.
Why don't you, and Republicans generally, want to reduce those costs by funding the legal process to reject illegal immigrants?
LMAO. This is on Lankford's senate webpage:
"Lankford Named One of the Most Conservative Senators
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator James Lankford (R-OK) was awarded the 2019 Award for Conservative Excellence by the American Conservative Union (ACU) Foundation for his voting record in 2019. Lankford obtained an ACU rating of 95 percent, the second-highest in the Senate."
www.lankford.senate.gov/.../
@goaded: The bill would allow have officially allowed 5k illegals a day before the border is allegedly protected. That's not "rejecting illegals". And that's a bare minimum because Biden still has the power to "parole" any number of illegals he wants to, something he'd continue to do.
Riddle me this- why haven't we seen a bill to simply hire more Border Patrol agents? Democrats don't want it. It's not bipartisan.
If you were familiar with US politics, you'd know that foreign aid is probably the area of most (and maybe the only consistent) area of bipartisanship. A 70-29 on funding military aid is not a large majority by the standards of bipartisanship.
Interpret Lankford's negotiations with the Democrats as you will, but you'd have to admit that given the Democrats' rabid support for unlimited numbers of illegals, it's not believable to claim that they actually want to reduce the numbers of illegals, much less stop them altogether. The fact that the Democrats wanted this bill tells us they got what they really wanted out of it- more illegals, not enforcement, which is already the law and is violated by this administration's open borders policies.
Someone wanted Lankford to get a bill (perhaps to get the border out of the news). To get the Democrats on board, he had to give them what they really wanted- more illegals. Fact is, protecting the border is never going to be a bipartisan issue.
Why don't Democrats propose and pass a Republican bill? Perhaps the answer is in the question. If you knew anything about how politics works anywhere outside a dictatorship, you'd know that politicians will demand compromise in order to earn their vote. That's how it's supposed to work.
Day 1: www.whitehouse.gov/.../
It's not "shoot them all on sight", it's humane, and tries to tackle the problems that are causing people to leave their countries.
You can keep lying about Democrats "wanting" illegal immigrants, but the facts show otherwise.
@goaded: It turns out you've (unsurprisingly) mischaracterized Lankford. He's received praise from open borders groups and is known for being willing to give in on immigration, meaning to characterize what he negotiated as "bipartisan" is inaccurate, as the bill's failure clearly indicated. V
Giving the Democrats all that they want in return (continued open borders) for some vague promise of enforcement of existing law after 5k illegals have been counted daily is not a compromise, which is exactly why leftists are angry they weren't given what they wanted and are gaslighting everyone about the nature of this bill. Not only have Democrats refused to enforce immigration laws as they are required to do, enforcement was promised when the 1986 amnesty legislation was passed, but never came about, so no one believes that Democrats will suddenly start enforcing what is already existing law.
It's leftists like you who have to keep lying- you want open borders, you want unlimited numbers of people to enter, and you'd love to get Republicans to agree to allow everyone to enter, so, yes, you want illegals, as the Democrats' actions in not enforcing laws on illegal entry show. That failure to enforcement such important laws is criminal and should not be rewarded by legalizing it so unlimited numbers can continue to enter.
It's not humane to open your borders to criminals and people who can't even find housing or jobs and it's not humane to force your taxpayers to fund the expensive costs of supporting millions who should not be in the country in the first place. You claim to live in Germany, where exactly the same thing has happened- illegals can't find work, are dependent on taxpayer largesse and some of them commit crimes.
Putting out some White House propaganda from Day 1 is complete rubbish when we since then have seen exactly what the administration's actions and goals are- open borders invasion, not enforcement. Biden's executive orders and non-enforcement and their results are there for all to see.
Millions of people whose identities are unknown entering the country, including from countries hostile to the US, is an invasion. It's not up to the US taxpayer to solve the problems in other societies- we have our own to take care of.
But thanks for exposing once again the lies behind leftists' desire to keep borders open- the actions of the Democrats show you are lying. No matter how much you try to dress up what they're doing, it's criminal and it's allowing in unlimited numbers of people who should not be allowed in.
And you, as someone who isn't a US citizen, has no business lying to US citizens and telling us that we should keep our borders completely open, especially when the country you claim to live in can't handle open borders either.
Opinion
2Opinion
The truth is that any realistic long-term solution to the immigration crisis in the country is going to have to have SOME level of amnesty- or it was, five years ago. Now? Now I think we're pretty much doomed to follow Rome.
Why not deport all the democrat replacement voters they brought in as well?
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
You can also add your opinion below!
