Blame Biden

[WyattEarp]

Inflation was caused by shortages and production cut backs and layoffs during the COVID lockdowns and a sudden surge in demand immediately afterwards. Not Biden's fault.

What's your inflation-licking solution, Wyatt? I don't think Trump would actually have one because he's a senile, narcissistic moron.

Please try to follow the discussion. I said that Administrations (Republican or Democratic) always receive some blame for events under their watch. In general, the voter is not going to fairly assess what the President can control or can't control. Perhaps it's not fair, but it is reality.

Here is my quote from earlier: "As I said months ago, the Biden Administration is kind of stuck in a one trick pony Keynesian spending mode to manage the economy. I don't know if Trump really would have been able to figure it out, but he's not President."

I'm not President either. However, I think I would start with trying to incentivize people back into the workforce, working more hours, etc. Anyone with two eyes down here can see we are not back to normal employment and yet there are businesses everywhere that have been looking for employees for months. I'm guessing Canada is experiencing the same phenomenon. Perhaps the government could supplement low wage earners for hours worked in some emergency measure. The government could also target certain industries like transportation where there appears to bottlenecks in moving goods and capital equipment. Again, I'm not President.

Printing money and keeping everyone home was a necessary emergency measure. Now you have to try to undo it.

 

[mandrill]

I'm not sure why you and others keep flogging this idea that Biden is essentially doing what the law requires on the border and isn't deviating much from Trump's immigration enforcement. Where does this idea come from? It appears to some extreme form of gaslighting. There is information available to everyone that details stark changes in U.S. immigration enforcement under Biden.

First, the Biden Administration deported 59,000 people last year versus 186,000 in 2020. That seems to be a radical drop in two years that are COVID years. The only thing that has changed is the President.

Second, the Biden Administration eliminated Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy and went back to catch and release. The Biden Administration is fighting for their decision in Court appealing lower Court decisions.

The discussion wasn't whether one likes Trump's policies or not. It was this crazy idea that nothing has materially change with Biden's immigration policies.

Supreme Court to hear arguments on Biden's bid to end Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the Biden administration's latest attempt to end a Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" immigration policy.

www.cnbc.com

Can you find the stats and an article on the low deportations last year?

Again, you're confused about the other stuff. There are 2 categories on non-visaed entries that we are discussing. #1 are people who sneak across the border or - more usually - overstay visits and go underground. Those are straight-up illegals. They're caught and they're deported. That's the "catch and release" - which is actually catch and deport. To the extent that they claim refugee status on apprehension, they may be released rather than warehoused at the taxpayer expense in a holding centre. The release is a form of bail, which requires the alien to appear for further hearings. If the alien fails to appear, I suspect they then lose the right to continue with the refugee process. So they are heavily incentivized to appear for the next steps in the legal process. It also saves the taxpayer a lot of money.

The other categories are those who appear at a border point and claim refugee status. Trump's solution was to underfund the refugee determination tribunals and create vast waiting periods for hearings and force the claimants to remain in Mexico for periods which appear to amount to several years. This is clearly a denial of legal rights and had as its intention that the claimants become discouraged and give up and not endure the waiting period for a hearing. It's probably not an actual constitutional breach as the claimants are not US residents, nor are the breaches occurring on US soil. It's sort of the Gitmo approach to refugee claims.

That said, the approach is reprehensible and clearly has as its main objective the undermining of any feasible refugee procedure for entry in the US. Biden promised to do away with the approach and IIRC delayed for likely political reasons until summer 2021.

Now the refugee process is frequently abused by claimants who are not refugees. And given that the US is adjacent to the 3rd World, the #s involved can be inconvenient. But the answer is for the US to go before the UN and simply resile from the UNCHR agreement on refugees. It can then stand out as the only developed world country that does not live up to its humanitarian obligations in that regard. We both know that the US will not humiliate itself by doing that. And if it is going to participate in refugee processing, then it should make a genuine attempt to provide hearings in a reasonable time frame and accommode the claimants in the meantime. Like Canada does.

Aside from the suspension of the Remain in Mexico policy - after some delay - I am not aware of any difference in the official policy between the Trump and Biden administrations. If the Biden admin is somehow simply letting nasty brown people stream into the USA to "replace" the less hardy indigenous whites the way one species of lizard replaces another - as Fucker Carlson claims - I am not aware of the how's and when's. And the Biden admin does warehouse many refugee claimants in detention centres.

So find me some links and I will happily read and discuss them. Look forward to reading your stuff.

 

[WyattEarp]

Can you find the stats and an article on the low deportations last year?

"The agency carried out 59,011 deportations in fiscal year 2021, an all-time low, according to historical ICE data. The previous low came in fiscal year 2004, when ICE recorded 175,106 deportations."

It seems like an objective number to me. Do you think this number can misreported? Are you wondering why you don't hear this number? I'm kind of wondering. Is it possible your news source is not reporting important information? Just sayin'.

ICE arrests and deportations plunged in 2021 under Biden rules

Current rules instruct ICE officers to detain immigrants convicted of serious crimes, migrants who recently crossed a U.S. border illegally, and those deemed to pose a national security risk, such as suspected terrorists.

news.yahoo.com

 

[mandrill]

"The agency carried out 59,011 deportations in fiscal year 2021, an all-time low, according to historical ICE data. The previous low came in fiscal year 2004, when ICE recorded 175,106 deportations."

It seems like an objective number to me. Do you think this number can misreported? Are you wondering why you don't hear this number? I'm kind of wondering. Is it possible your news source is not reporting important information? Just sayin'.

ICE arrests and deportations plunged in 2021 under Biden rules

Current rules instruct ICE officers to detain immigrants convicted of serious crimes, migrants who recently crossed a U.S. border illegally, and those deemed to pose a national security risk, such as suspected terrorists.

news.yahoo.com

Ok, I stand corrected. There is a change in policy re deportations. I agree with the change. It's smart and makes sense. It also doesn't affect newly-arrived illegals, who are still arrested and deported as before.

Here's the actual article:

The sharp decrease in ICE arrests and deportations is largely a reflection of the Biden administration's efforts to reshape the agency's work and narrow the groups of immigrants whom agents should detain. Administration officials also cited a "complex environment" during the pandemic that played a role in limiting arrests and deportations.

Current rules instruct ICE officers to detain immigrants convicted of serious crimes, migrants who recently crossed a U.S. border illegally, and those deemed to pose a national security risk, such as suspected terrorists. Under the Biden-era rules, officers generally refrain from arresting immigrants with clean records if they have lived in the U.S. for years.

The Biden administration has generally barred ICE officers from detaining victims of serious crimes and pregnant or nursing women, and discontinued worksite sweeps and the long-term detention of migrant families with children. ICE officials also tried to implement a 100-day deportation moratorium during President Biden's first week in office, but that plan was blocked by a Texas lawsuit.

Republicans have strongly opposed the policy changes at ICE, accusing the administration of not fully enforcing immigration laws at a time when border arrivals have soared. Progressives have also expressed frustration, criticizing officials for not further curtailing ICE detention and arrests.

You may not be aware that Canada offers a pathway to legal status for long term illegals who have no criminal record and have been consistently self-supporting. It's a smart policy and one that pays off for both the individuals concerned and Canada. I'm glad that the US is finally smart enough to do the same.

 

[WyattEarp]

You may not be aware that Canada offers a pathway to legal status for long term illegals who have no criminal record and have been consistently self-supporting. It's a smart policy and one that pays off for both the individuals concerned and Canada. I'm glad that the US is finally smart enough to do the same.

Wasn't the original argument here that Biden is following the same immigration policy as Trump and was being unfairly blamed for the surging numbers at the border? Seriously, as crazy as it sounds that was the point initially being made.

Biden is not only deviating from Trump's policy. He's also departing from Obama's policy. I'm not sure I believe that the Obama Administration was deporting large numbers of innocent illegals.

 

[WyattEarp]

You may not be aware that Canada offers a pathway to legal status for long term illegals who have no criminal record and have been consistently self-supporting. It's a smart policy and one that pays off for both the individuals concerned and Canada. I'm glad that the US is finally smart enough to do the same.

Canada does not have anywhere near the same magnitude of illegal immigration. Canadians don't have to make these hard choices . Close the border, deport people who ignore their court dates and so on. The rules based Canadian immigration system can be applied and for the most part enforced.

So the political decisions Canadians have to make regarding immigration versus Americans is apples to oranges.

The United States while not having as high a percentage of foreign-born residents as Canada is approaching historic highs. Given that it is likely there is no sure way to track illegal immigration, it's likely the number of foreign-born in the U.S. is higher. Most Americans want for the United States to be able to control its immigration and to have border crossings controlled and authorized. The current situation is untenable for Biden and the Democrats.

U.S. Immigrant Population and Share over Time, 1850-Present

This chart displays both the number of immigrants residing in the United States and their share of the total U.S. population over time.

www.migrationpolicy.org

I believe you and others have made the point that Canada accepts a greater share of refugees relative to its population than the United States. That is just creative, manipulative wordsmithing when it suits an argument. The word refugee is now being liberally applied to most illegal immigration at the Southern border and elsewhere. If that is the case, the United States has taken in millions and millions of "refugees" in the last thirty years. Again, Canada has a system of accepting refugees that is more orderly and controlled. Canada can actually have a fairly good idea how many refugees and immigrants have entered the country.

 

[WyattEarp]

 

[WyattEarp]

Both parties do it if they can get away with it, but the GOP does it more often and they’re a lot more blatant than the Democrats.

I think this is a big overstatement. I've posted the Illinois and Florida maps above for comparison. I don't see the Florida Republican map being more blatantly gerrymandered than the Illinois Democratic map. If you are saying Republicans have more opportunities than Democrats to gerrymander because they control more States, that's an entirely different argument. Yikes, that Blue district that skirts Springfield amongst other Illinois districts are pretty ugly.

 

[WyattEarp]

I read up some on the DeSantis map. Like many State Governors, he can veto a map and introduce a map to the legislature. I would say he's looking for a court battle with the Democrats on racially-biased maps drawn in favor of minorities. He wiped out Florida's controversial Fifth Congressional district which was designed to be an African-American seat in Congress. The original map cherry picked Black communities in Jacksonville and Tallahassee while skimming across the Black concentration on the Northern slice of the State. (See map above.)

I don't mean to be a dick, but remember you seemed surprised that Congressional seats were gerrymandered to drive racial results in Congress.

Per NPR:
In March, DeSantis vetoed a map approved by the Republican-led legislature citing "legal concerns."
He's been outspoken about his desire to challenge two congressional districts, believing that their protections for minority voters are unlawful.
At the conclusion of a bill signing Tuesday, DeSantis said his office's map will "have North Florida drawn in race-neutral manner. We are not going to have a 20-mile gerrymander that divvies up people based on the color of their skin. That is wrong. That is not the way we have governed in the state of Florida." DeSantis acknowledged whatever map is ultimately picked will be challenged in court.

If DeSantis becomes a solid front runner for 2024, you can expect a lot more "Evil Florida Man" coverage from the majority of the media. It's inevitable.

 

[Valcazar]

If DeSantis becomes a solid front runner for 2024, you can expect a lot more "Evil Florida Man" coverage from the majority of the media. It's inevitable.

Along with a lot more beat sweeteners about how he is heir to the mantle and taking the GOP in a bold direction, etc.
The mainstream media has been hyping him as the obvious next contender for a while and pushing him as a success story repeatedly.
The New York Times is going to practically be drooling to hype him up.

 

[toguy5252]

I read up some on the DeSantis map. Like many State Governors, he can veto a map and introduce a map to the legislature. I would say he's looking for a court battle with the Democrats on racially-biased maps drawn in favor of minorities. He wiped out Florida's controversial Fifth Congressional district which was designed to be an African-American seat in Congress. The original map cherry picked Black communities in Jacksonville and Tallahassee while skimming across the Black concentration on the Northern slice of the State. (See map above.)

I don't mean to be a dick, but remember you seemed surprised that Congressional seats were gerrymandered to drive racial results in Congress.

Per NPR:
In March, DeSantis vetoed a map approved by the Republican-led legislature citing "legal concerns."
He's been outspoken about his desire to challenge two congressional districts, believing that their protections for minority voters are unlawful.
At the conclusion of a bill signing Tuesday, DeSantis said his office's map will "have North Florida drawn in race-neutral manner. We are not going to have a 20-mile gerrymander that divvies up people based on the color of their skin. That is wrong. That is not the way we have governed in the state of Florida." DeSantis acknowledged whatever map is ultimately picked will be challenged in court.

If DeSantis becomes a solid front runner for 2024, you can expect a lot more "Evil Florida Man" coverage from the majority of the media. It's inevitable.

Nothing changes the fact that he overruled a bipartisan map and he did it clearly to affect the outcome of the vote.

 

[mandrill]

Canada does not have anywhere near the same magnitude of illegal immigration. Canadians don't have to make these hard choices . Close the border, deport people who ignore their court dates and so on. The rules based Canadian immigration system can be applied and for the most part enforced.

Probably correct. But the principle that long-term, law-abiding, contributing illegals are not necessarily bad for a country remains true and common to both countries.

So the political decisions Canadians have to make regarding immigration versus Americans is apples to oranges.
The United States while not having as high a percentage of foreign-born residents as Canada is approaching historic highs. Given that it is likely there is no sure way to track illegal immigration, it's likely the number of foreign-born in the U.S. is higher. Most Americans want for the United States to be able to control its immigration and to have border crossings controlled and authorized.

They are. Biden is simply re-configuring priorities in enforcement regarding long-term, law-abiding, contributing illegals. This is why it's so dumb when assholes like DeSantis visit the border for photo ops. Border enforcement is exactly the same.

I believe you and others have made the point that Canada accepts a greater share of refugees relative to its population than the United States. That is just creative, manipulative wordsmithing when it suits an argument. The word refugee is now being liberally applied to most illegal immigration at the Southern border and elsewhere. If that is the case, the United States has taken in millions and millions of "refugees" in the last thirty years. Again, Canada has a system of accepting refugees that is more orderly and controlled. Canada can actually have a fairly good idea how many refugees and immigrants have entered the country.

No. You simply have no immigration law background and you write whatever nonsense comes into your mind.

The word ""refugee" is a legally defined term under the UNCHR, to which the US is a signatory. The claimant gets a hearing which determines whether he /she comes within the terms of the UN Charter. The definition is legally defined. The hearing is judicial. Both the US and Canada have similar procedures and identical legal definitions.

No one is "liberally applying" the term refugee to Southern Border illegal immigration. That makes about as much sense as you saying that someone is calling illegal immigrants "contracting parties" or "real estate purchasers". It's a defined legal term. If someone shows up at a border point in either country and says "I am a refugee", he / she is entitled to some kind of inquiry, if not a full judicial hearing. But this isn't a case of some liberal in a trendy cafe in NYC saying "They're all going to be called refugees from now on because we're into creative wordsmithing'" - or whatever your GOP fantasy scenario is about this.

Again, if you think this threatens the white race in the USA, you're welcome to send some rep to the UN in NYC who will formally repudiate the UNCHR and say that the US will no longer follow it. But the GOP isn't going to do that because it would make the US an international pariah. So you're going to have to provide refugee hearings for anyone who has a credible claim. And that's not something some "liberal elite" sipping cappuccinos in Venice Beach made up. It's something a GOP administration signed up to do in 1953.

 

[mandrill]

Wasn't the original argument here that Biden is following the same immigration policy as Trump and was being unfairly blamed for the surging numbers at the border? Seriously, as crazy as it sounds that was the point initially being made.
Biden is not only deviating from Trump's policy. He's also departing from Obama's policy. I'm not sure I believe that the Obama Administration was deporting large numbers of innocent illegals.

But he is. Aside from the "remain in Mexico" term - which appears to remain in force due to judicial rulings in any event, I believe.

Same border enforcement. Different level of enforcement priorities re long term illegals. They're different concepts, right?..... Border enforcement / Long term resident illegals. You get the distinction?

 

[WyattEarp]

Nothing changes the fact that he overruled a bipartisan map and he did it clearly to affect the outcome of the vote.

Uhhh yeah, we've already established that gerrymandering exists in the United States and to a great extent is legal. It exists in Illinois and it exists in other states Red and Blue.

 

[WyattEarp]

No. You simply have no immigration law background and you write whatever nonsense comes into your mind.

The word ""refugee" is a legally defined term under the UNCHR, to which the US is a signatory. The claimant gets a hearing which determines whether he /she comes within the terms of the UN Charter. The definition is legally defined. The hearing is judicial. Both the US and Canada have similar procedures and identical legal definitions.

No one is "liberally applying" the term refugee to Southern Border illegal immigration. That makes about as much sense as you saying that someone is calling illegal immigrants "contracting parties" or "real estate purchasers". It's a defined legal term. If someone shows up at a border point in either country and says "I am a refugee", he / she is entitled to some kind of inquiry, if not a full judicial hearing. But this isn't a case of some liberal in a trendy cafe in NYC saying "They're all going to be called refugees from now on because we're into creative wordsmithing'" - or whatever your GOP fantasy scenario is about this.

Again, if you think this threatens the white race in the USA, you're welcome to send some rep to the UN in NYC who will formally repudiate the UNCHR and say that the US will no longer follow it. But the GOP isn't going to do that because it would make the US an international pariah. So you're going to have to provide refugee hearings for anyone who has a credible claim. And that's not something some "liberal elite" sipping cappuccinos in Venice Beach made up. It's something a GOP administration signed up to do in 1953.

Don't let your arrogance get the best of you. You and Frank have used the term "refugee" to describe the recent waves coming to the U.S. Southern border from Central America. I believe Frank has called them climate refugees which I think you supported.

Now for the convenience of your argument, they are not refugees?

I like to use people's own words to reshape an argument. I don't think there is anything wrong or misleading about that. Words matter and words can inform. And many times they can bullshit.

You're an attorney follow the words. All I said is that using the "refugee" definition established by others, the United States has taken in millions and millions of refugees. Does it make you feel better if I say we have taken in millions and millions of poor immigrants? The point is the U.S. takes in many, many immigrants know matter the status of their entry.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

The comedy of bidens border is that most illegals come to.united states by airplane. Fox News and thr gop.conveniently ignore this fact and pretend that building a wall the gop voted against and taking children from their parents somehow fixes everything

 

[mandrill]

Don't let your arrogance get the best of you. You and Frank have used the term "refugee" to describe the recent waves coming to the U.S. Southern border from Central America. I believe Frank has called them climate refugees which I think you supported.

You're talking nonsense. First, I doubt that I supported Frank using that term and if I did, it was only in the most casual sense and not the legal sense. One can call fleeing Syrians "refugees from civil war", but that is only a casual reference and has no relation to whether they technically fit within the UNCHR definition. The latter have the legal right to remain within the receiving country's territory; the former quite possibly do not, although their plight might be sympathetic. The USA has every legal right to deport very unfortunate and sympathetic people from Guatemala who are fleeing poverty and a high crime rate because those are not UNCHR grounds for establishing refugee status.

Now for the convenience of your argument, they are not refugees?

Becoming a refugee in the legal sense is a process. You appear unable to follow my very simple explanations in that regard and that baffles me, as you describe yourself as the "intellectual elite of TERB". A refugee has to fit within the legal definition set out in the UNCHR and the receiving state either agrees, or the claim is determined by an independent tribunal. It has nothing to do with what I choose to call them.

I like to use people's own words to reshape an argument. I don't think there is anything wrong or misleading about that. Words matter and words can inform. And many times they can bullshit.
You're an attorney follow the words. All I said is that using the "refugee" definition established by others, the United States has taken in millions and millions of refugees. Does it make you feel better if I say we have taken in millions and millions of poor immigrants? The point is the U.S. takes in many, many immigrants know matter the status of their entry.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. It's gibberish. First "refugee" and "poor migrant" are not legally synonymous terms, any more than "crocodile" and "bowling ball" are legally synonymous terms. And second, I can't even glean what context you are referring to. Are you discussing the southern border in the 21st Century? Ellis Island in the 1900's? Please write more clearly.

I believe you are not grasping basic concepts of immigration law and you appear unable to participate in this discussion.

 

[mandrill]

Don't let your arrogance get the best of you. You and Frank have used the term "refugee" to describe the recent waves coming to the U.S. Southern border from Central America. I believe Frank has called them climate refugees which I think you supported.

Now for the convenience of your argument, they are not refugees?

I like to use people's own words to reshape an argument. I don't think there is anything wrong or misleading about that. Words matter and words can inform. And many times they can bullshit.

You're an attorney follow the words. All I said is that using the "refugee" definition established by others, the United States has taken in millions and millions of refugees. Does it make you feel better if I say we have taken in millions and millions of poor immigrants? The point is the U.S. takes in many, many immigrants know matter the status of their entry.

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You appear to be totally lost on this topic. Try reading some fundamentals. Start with this wiki article. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[toguy5252]

Uhhh yeah, we've already established that gerrymandering exists in the United States and to a great extent is legal. It exists in Illinois and it exists in other states Red and Blue.

I have agreed and it is indisputable that bot sides are involved in gerrymandering. It is also the case the with the GOP the overt motive to affect election outcomes is much more pronounced and blatant..

 

[Frankfooter]

Don't let your arrogance get the best of you. You and Frank have used the term "refugee" to describe the recent waves coming to the U.S. Southern border from Central America. I believe Frank has called them climate refugees which I think you supported.

I've called people fleeing climate change from places like Guatemala 'climate refugees'. Its not a legal term, its a description of their situation as the term 'refugee' refers to people fleeing political troubles that make their lives dangerous. There is no other term that better describes that situation than 'climate change refugee', that I know of. If you have one, lets here.
Mandril has not used that term.