Sorry but the Dems in Congress have been open to compromise but in Trump's first term and in Biden's last 2 years. Yes the left is silly. And PS the right in the GOP is silly. But the open borders is a talking point. PS - simply hiring more judges when Trump started his first term would have helped a lot - but he specifically did not wan…
Sorry but the Dems in Congress have been open to compromise but in Trump's first term and in Biden's last 2 years. Yes the left is silly. And PS the right in the GOP is silly. But the open borders is a talking point. PS - simply hiring more judges when Trump started his first term would have helped a lot - but he specifically did not want that.
PS the largest numbers of illegals now are Indians and many come legally as tourists but overstay. And if you want to meet an illegal alien go to a nail salon in Queens or Jersey City. These too came via plane, cleared customs and stayed.
No need to be sorry. Some of your statements are right, some of them are wrong, but none of them are stupid or -- I think -- ill-intentioned.
To start with where you're right, yes, the largest number of illegals are overstays. Whether they're Irish in Boston, Poles in Chicago, or Indians, well, anywhere, their employers should be subject to sanctions and they should be deported. So far, we apparently agree.
Hiring A LOT more judges would certainly have been a huge help. Trump has always been a liar and never operated in good faith, so he did what was to be expected. I'm grateful for the good things that Biden accomplished, but not accomplishing this was one of his big fails, along with not reforming the Emergencies and Insurrection Acts. So now we're where we are.
As for the silliness of the Left and Right ends of the horseshoe, certainly I agree; if anything, I think that you're being kind.
Now, on "the Dems in Congress [being] open to compromise", I beg to differ. My consistent observation was that they were willing only to "negotiate" border security as part of an overall immigration policy package. That was always a non-starter, and should have been: border security is an essential attribute of sovereignty, not just another policy point, and it is and should be non-negotiable to anybody. I would have voted for Harris anyway, but I was especially happy to do so because she promised to enact the Lankford bill. that would have been a good start. Too bad the realization came three or four years too late. So now we get what David Frum warned us about for at least two years, and no progress. We can and should have a real debate on immigration policy, but it's important enough to be debated on its own merits, as a set of policy issues, on the US side of a secure border.
I purposely avoided using the term "open borders" in my comment because I know how much it triggers most people on the Left. I don't understand that and it seems more than a little disingenuous to me, but I'd rather discuss the issues, and not get bogged down in the semantics. That's why I referred to a "21st Century Ellis Island" policy. That's what I've always heard with minor variations from Congressional Democrats, and that's where I think, after reading all of his newsletters that Mr. Carrasquillo is coming from. You can read it from various people in these very Comments by just scrolling down. If you think it, you should own it; if not, you should deny it. But please stop trying to dismiss it, whatever you prefer to call it, as if it were so outlandish as to be beneath your consideration. It's not, and it's not a good look, at the very least.
I'd like to think that Democrats would have reached a compromise bill earlier that added more border security and enforcement if Republicans had been willing to compromise on a clear path to citizenship for Dreamers- but Republicans refused to budge on that. I want that to be the point that Democrats refuse to budge on- no democratic support for Republican immigration bills unless there is an expedited path to citizenship for them that can't be revoked by executive order.
Border security cannot be held hostage to anything, any more than national defense or delivering the mails can be: it's a basic function of government and a fundamental requirement of national sovereignty. That was the lesson that Democrats took far too long to learn, and seem to have forgotten again immediately after the last election.
The line of reasoning that called the border crisis bogus and concluded that holding border security hostage was a smart response is the Democratic strategy that gave us Trump 2.0, as David Frum and many others predicted that it would. Have you forgotten how President Biden "couldn't do anything about the border on his own authority because he needed cooperation from Congress" for over three years -- until suddenly he could act after all and he didn't really need Congress at all? Unfortunately that revelation came to him far too late to save Harris, and to save us from the current disaster. Our choices have never been border security OR immigration reform: they've always been border security WITH immigration reform, or border security alone. Until the Democrats wise up on that, we're stuck with Trump.
But it could get worse. The real nightmare scenario is that the electorate is satisfied enough with Trump's actions on the border that he's rewarded with larger majorities instead of losses in the midterms, and we get a new Congress willing to enact Steven Miller's form of "immigration reform". I don't doubt that he has a detailed bill in his desk drawer ready to go, if the time ever seems right. Then you'll get your wish for a new immigration system that's immune from Executive Orders, but you and I won't like it.
Sorry but the Dems in Congress have been open to compromise but in Trump's first term and in Biden's last 2 years. Yes the left is silly. And PS the right in the GOP is silly. But the open borders is a talking point. PS - simply hiring more judges when Trump started his first term would have helped a lot - but he specifically did not want that.
PS the largest numbers of illegals now are Indians and many come legally as tourists but overstay. And if you want to meet an illegal alien go to a nail salon in Queens or Jersey City. These too came via plane, cleared customs and stayed.
No need to be sorry. Some of your statements are right, some of them are wrong, but none of them are stupid or -- I think -- ill-intentioned.
To start with where you're right, yes, the largest number of illegals are overstays. Whether they're Irish in Boston, Poles in Chicago, or Indians, well, anywhere, their employers should be subject to sanctions and they should be deported. So far, we apparently agree.
Hiring A LOT more judges would certainly have been a huge help. Trump has always been a liar and never operated in good faith, so he did what was to be expected. I'm grateful for the good things that Biden accomplished, but not accomplishing this was one of his big fails, along with not reforming the Emergencies and Insurrection Acts. So now we're where we are.
As for the silliness of the Left and Right ends of the horseshoe, certainly I agree; if anything, I think that you're being kind.
Now, on "the Dems in Congress [being] open to compromise", I beg to differ. My consistent observation was that they were willing only to "negotiate" border security as part of an overall immigration policy package. That was always a non-starter, and should have been: border security is an essential attribute of sovereignty, not just another policy point, and it is and should be non-negotiable to anybody. I would have voted for Harris anyway, but I was especially happy to do so because she promised to enact the Lankford bill. that would have been a good start. Too bad the realization came three or four years too late. So now we get what David Frum warned us about for at least two years, and no progress. We can and should have a real debate on immigration policy, but it's important enough to be debated on its own merits, as a set of policy issues, on the US side of a secure border.
I purposely avoided using the term "open borders" in my comment because I know how much it triggers most people on the Left. I don't understand that and it seems more than a little disingenuous to me, but I'd rather discuss the issues, and not get bogged down in the semantics. That's why I referred to a "21st Century Ellis Island" policy. That's what I've always heard with minor variations from Congressional Democrats, and that's where I think, after reading all of his newsletters that Mr. Carrasquillo is coming from. You can read it from various people in these very Comments by just scrolling down. If you think it, you should own it; if not, you should deny it. But please stop trying to dismiss it, whatever you prefer to call it, as if it were so outlandish as to be beneath your consideration. It's not, and it's not a good look, at the very least.
I'd like to think that Democrats would have reached a compromise bill earlier that added more border security and enforcement if Republicans had been willing to compromise on a clear path to citizenship for Dreamers- but Republicans refused to budge on that. I want that to be the point that Democrats refuse to budge on- no democratic support for Republican immigration bills unless there is an expedited path to citizenship for them that can't be revoked by executive order.
Border security cannot be held hostage to anything, any more than national defense or delivering the mails can be: it's a basic function of government and a fundamental requirement of national sovereignty. That was the lesson that Democrats took far too long to learn, and seem to have forgotten again immediately after the last election.
Republicans held it hostage and got rewarded for it, so it's either not an crisis, or a good strategy, or both.
The line of reasoning that called the border crisis bogus and concluded that holding border security hostage was a smart response is the Democratic strategy that gave us Trump 2.0, as David Frum and many others predicted that it would. Have you forgotten how President Biden "couldn't do anything about the border on his own authority because he needed cooperation from Congress" for over three years -- until suddenly he could act after all and he didn't really need Congress at all? Unfortunately that revelation came to him far too late to save Harris, and to save us from the current disaster. Our choices have never been border security OR immigration reform: they've always been border security WITH immigration reform, or border security alone. Until the Democrats wise up on that, we're stuck with Trump.
But it could get worse. The real nightmare scenario is that the electorate is satisfied enough with Trump's actions on the border that he's rewarded with larger majorities instead of losses in the midterms, and we get a new Congress willing to enact Steven Miller's form of "immigration reform". I don't doubt that he has a detailed bill in his desk drawer ready to go, if the time ever seems right. Then you'll get your wish for a new immigration system that's immune from Executive Orders, but you and I won't like it.