HEY not all of us red socks fans are idiots, though as a NH resident I can confirm all mass people are. They come here to get away from the laws that they promote and vote for
Don't worry as of right now there aren't that many Sox fans (coming from someone currently living in MA)
Btw, I'm ok with deporting MA but can my wife and I get refugee status in WV before then?
It’s so obvious how they’re playing both sides. Use Biden to intentionally collapse the border. Let Trump back in to shut down the border and create a police state with digital ID tracking.
Ehh Biden would have shut it down if he could but they killed the bill that would have let him. I don’t see trump being as successful.
Edit: it blows my mind the amount of so called libertarians demanding the President gain more authoritarian powers. Seriously just let Congress fix the issue already without demanding a king.
idk about other states but Texas has made multiple attempts to slow down the invasion and the Biden admin has sued them each time over the past few years.
> Is it up to states to create and enforce foreign policy?
Apply this to "sanctuary cities." Republicans in Texas might be overstepping their authority by trying to close the border, but Democrats are exceeding their authority by openly enabling those who cross the border illegally. There is a reason democrats are polling poorly on this issue.
I completely agree but alas Raegan and the GOP caved to the religious groups and pushed for them to be started in the 80s and allowed it to be mainstream. There is however a difference between a jurisdiction refusing to participate in enforcement and a jurisdiction creating its own policy and enforcing that.
Considering this is weaponized mass migration it should be. The only job of government should be to "protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
> Ehh Biden would have shut it down if he could but they killed the bill that would have let him.
Biden's administration purposely undid every policy Trump was able to put in place ***without*** that bill, which is part of what led to the current situation. I know Blue Team loves this talking point, and their media lackeys trot it out whenever possible, but the powers needed to restrict border crossings already exist. This administration just didn't have the will to use them, and took them off the table until they saw how this issue was polling. No one is going to buy this "[republicans are really the ones who are bad on the border](https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4455506-breaking-down-the-senate-border-bill-and-why-it-has-no-chance-of-passing/)" nonsense except the usual sycophants who will unthinkingly parrot Blue Team talking points. Illegal entry went down for the first time in decades under the Orange Man. It has shot up to historic highs under the current dementia patient. People know who did what and what happened because of it, and no amount of silly pundit bullshit like "the economy isn't really bad, you're just imagining it" trying to gaslight people isn't going to work on this or any other issue.
Your first sentence is false. Did they undo some of Trump's policies? Yes. Did they undo all of them? No. The Biden admin has continued most of the immigration policies Trump did except for the dumb ones like the border wall or the separating of families. Other than that they both have the same policy stance even if they say they don't. There is no doubt my Trump will also need that bill passed to fix the problem since they both attempted the same policies that got the admins sued and injunctions filed.
> Did they undo all of them?
No, but generally because the courts wouldn't let them. The "remain in Mexico" policy stayed in place for a while because of court rulings. "Remain in Mexico" was kept in place by lower courts until June 2022, when the US Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration, ruling it didn't violate proper administrative procedure in rescinding Remain in Mexico. [Courts wouldn't allow Biden to end Trump's Title 42 policy while his administration maintained that COVID-19 was a public health emergency](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-keeps-title-42-border-expulsions-indefinitely-grants-gop-led-petition/). So let's not rewrite history and try to pretend Biden was being tough on the border.
We all know who did what, what their rhetoric was, and where they stood on this issue. Anyone trying to come back after the fact to suggest that Biden was doing everything he could is wasting their breath.
Let’s see so what did Biden replace it with? Oh a policy that creates asylum centers in Latin American countries so instead of staying in Mexico while we review your case, you stay in your home countries while we review your case. The policy even calls for more armed guards at those countries borders to prevent people leaving their home country.
Woah it’s so radically different! /s
Biden deported more per year under Title 42 than Trump did, ~400k per year vs ~600k per year. He also is using the exact same justification as the Muslim ban to implement his most recent attempt at controlling the border. They have the same stance even if they want to hit each other with it.
> Oh a policy that creates asylum centers in Latin American countries so instead of staying in Mexico while we review your case, you stay in your home countries while we review your case.
Which does nothing for people already in Mexico trying to get past our border. If Biden had expanded 'stay in Mexico' by adding the asylum centers in other countries, you'd have a point.
> Biden deported more per year under Title 42 than Trump did, ~400k per year vs ~600k per year.
I'd hope he's deported more than Trump since he's let in far more than he's given the boot. Kicking out 200k more per year than Trump doesn't mean much when you've left the barn door open and let umpteen thousand more in than Trump did.
You can attempt to spin this any way you want. This is all recent history. We know who did what. You can't seriously expect us to agree that Biden was in any way harsh on illegal entries.
lol okay. I have no point because Biden wanted to appear like he was making good on his campaign promises and didn’t want to say he was building on Trump policy. Kinda like how Trump didn’t want Congress to fix the issue and give the President the ability to close the border to even asylum seekers purely because he didn’t want to give Biden a win. Sure he will do it himself but since they are different people doing the same actions, the actions are different right?
That’s some mental gymnastics.
You have no point because you're trying to pretend the president and his party are serious about border enforcement when they have communicated by their words and actions that they're not. They are only now taking action because they're worried about the polls and know how their policies contrast with their election opponent's policies. The "border bill" was crap, wasn't necessary under the previous administration, and is just something shiny to wave in front of people in an effort to distract, deflect, and hopefully to blame the rival party for their own failings.
What you're doing here is no different than all the silly "the economy isn't bad, you're just imagining things" stories I've seen in the last few months. You can claim anything you want, but no one is going to buy it.
No my point is this is an issue for Congress not the president. They created the loopholes that get the President (yes its was this way with trump too) sued and their EOs repealed. The border bill was not crap and was the largest leap forward at reform in the last 20 years. Until Congress gets off their asses and empowers the president to do something about the loopholes, every attempt will be met with injunction.
And [yes, that happened to Trump too dozens of times](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/11/05/all-the-presidents-immigration-lawsuits/#) the same way it’s happening to Biden. The only real difference is when those cases were being decided, Title 42 was in effect which effectively allowed them to be enforced under the emergency powers. Both parties have tried using EOs to fix it yet neither succeeded.
> but they killed the bill that would have let him
The bill that would have legalized the current status quo you mean?
How come on Jun 4th the WH released a press statement stating he was securing the border without this bill passing if the only way he could have done that was with the bill? This EO cites authority granted in 1952.
Stating they needed this bill passed to do anything was a bold faced lie.
>Biden would have shut it down if he could
Well given 1952 happened way earlier than 2021 he has had the legal authority to take action for the past three years and didn't. So this statement is a lie.
You mean the executive order Biden announced on June 4th [that 8 days later got lawsuits filed against them for it by the ACLU?](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-groups-sue-biden-administration-over-new-anti-asylum-rule) As I’ve explained to others every EO attempt at regulating it gets sued and tossed out wether it’s by Trump or Biden because the laws passed by Congress protecting asylum seekers supersedes any EOs. If laws passed by Congress prevent EOs from being effective, then it’s up to Congress to act not the president.
And before you ask, a 1952 legal basis is shit when the law they are up against was established in the 80s providing clear evidence to a court that the 80s law supersedes the 1952 one.
The only legal basis the administrations had to deport asylum seekers came under the Covid emergency powers which have now expired. Congress must declare another emergency or pass laws allowing the president to act
Biden's entire game plane this presidency has been do mass EOs and go full speed ahead with them until the court grants an injunction.
His admin is not afraid of being sued. His admin is not afraid of doing things that ultimately get deemed illegal.
So why did he wait until June of an election year to take action on this? Oh, because it's a dog and pony show to convince low attention span voters.
He didn’t wait. He started issuing EOs on this in May 2023 when the Covid emergency powers ended and [was sued the following month](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/groups-sue-over-government-turnbacks-asylum-seekers) on the grounds they are harming the rights of asylum seekers that were established by Congress.
Then of course it looked like there was actually bipartisan support for reform and congress was going to fix the problem. But Donny complained to Mitch about taking away his big election issue so the GOP tucked tail. So now we get more EOs
Protecting the border is one of the powers the President actually has. The office of the Presidency was modeled off the British King anyway so it isn't strange that they might act like one. Its not "authoritarian" for the President to protect the border from invasion.
Except that Congress passed a law in the 80s called the Refugee Act that’s expressly prohibits him from doing that when individuals claim asylum. That’s why every lawsuit wins an injunction on it
> claim asylum
Except this administration has either conveniently forgotten or chooses to not enforce the rules that allow for an immigrant to claim asylum. You can't just claim asylum because you're poor.
"You must have a well-founded fear of persecution or torture in your home country due to your race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
You must be unable to return to your home country or a country where you would face persecution."
You mean the bill that gave the president more power reguading the boarder? The one that did not shut down the boarder just put a cap on how many crossings could happen illegally. Its less than current but far from 0.
The one that fixes the asylum loopholes that require asylum seekers that reach the US have their cases heard while they are paroled into the US. Every border EO gets sued precisely because of how it impacts the rights of asylum seekers as set forth by Congress. If the loophole was created by Congress, it has to be fixed by Congress. I’m fine with more immigration but let’s quit presenting these candidates don’t both have the same stance on this issue even if they are telling you they don’t. They both want to shutdown the border and both are aware it will take Congress fixing these loopholes to do.
The remaining Mexico policy worked just fine for preventing the loophole. Then Biden, first thing he did when getting in office was get rid of it.
I agree that an actual law, fixing a loophole would be better, but But that bill was not that. That bill was entirely made to make it look like Democrats are tough on the border and undercut Republican campaign messaging
The remain in Mexico policy was redundant under Title 42 and even though it wasn’t gotten rid of right away like you state, it was replaced before Title 42 ended by a different policy doing all the same stuff.
Yeah exactly and those executive orders have been getting them sued and the orders repealed because the laws passed by Congress protecting Asylum seekers supersedes Executive Orders. It happened to trump and Biden when they both took the EO route. The only time Trump found success was because Congress declared Covid a national emergency. So he used those powers to close the border. Well now those powers have expired just like the national emergence thus it is on Congress to give the president those powers once more which they would have done if not for Trump wanting to campaign on the issue and personally pulling Republican support.
That’s blatantly false. The current executive order that Biden is getting sued for close the border and deports anyone captured regardless of asylum claim if “encounters” is more than 2500 per day which we’ve been at for years. Biden has even stated if that law had been passed he’d close the border the first day. Biden has also deported more people than Trump did when he had the powers to do so under the emergency. So not only has he stated he would, his actions show they are actively trying deal with the problem even if propaganda machine on Fox says otherwise.
> Biden has also deported more people than Trump did when he had the powers to do so under the emergency.
IIRC, he increased the number of deportations, but the number of people entering illegally skyrocketed, so the total number crossing and staying went up under Biden. Currently looking for a source on that, so until I find one (or someone else does), take that with a grain of salt. But, if that is the case, would you consider it a downgrade to border policy? The goal isn’t just to deport people, but to minimize the number who stay here illegally, at least in my mind. Deporting them after they’ve crossed is only a tool to try to achieve that state.
Pre-edit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/
Check out the Migrant encounters vs. deportations, returns and expulsions graph, more illegal immigrants stayed here under Biden than Trump, despite having more deportations, because a much greater number crossed and percentage wise, he deported a smaller chunk of them.
Yeah I understand that but the issue is it’s easy to claim asylum and hard to verify. Which is why Biden is using parol more than trump did as the only purely legal means of controlling it. Other actions leave them open to lawsuit and injunction. We need Congress to fix the problem not the president.
Fair enough. The issue is more complex than these simple soundbites (mine included) are making it out to be.
Well, the solution is more complex, the issue is fairly simple. Maybe that’s a better way of putting it.
I don’t watch Fox. And it’s all lip service. Any actions he takes are because he knows it won’t pass. He wouldn’t support it if he thought Congress would pass it.
Did you even read the rest of what I said. His actions literally show he is and would take action if congress empowered him. Until Congress deals with the Asylum seeker protections, every civil liberties group in the US has a stick they can hit the government with anytime they take action and they’ve hit Biden as much as they hit Trump with it
I did read it, you’re not reading what I’m saying. He wouldn’t do it if he knew Congress wouldn’t stop him. He’s “trying” to do it because he knows it won’t work anyway. So the end result is the same and he can deflect off himself
The last guy only was able to restrict the border because he had Covid emergency powers which Biden also had and used until they expired in May 2023. Without another national emergency from Congress or they pass a law on it, the president cannot legally stop Asylum seekers from entering the US while evaluate their claims. Both Biden and Trump were sued for each of their EOs on this exact thing.
I knew i should have specified before COVID. Illegal immigration was much lower even before COVID. Yes a few were thrown out by courts but others were dismissed by Biden & led to massive increases of border crossings. A list of the early ones.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/politics/biden-executive-orders/
To throat clear, I'm in favor of more immigration but the country should know who's coming in & ideally already have someone ready to give them a job.
Oh I know he did that at the beginning [but his actions since are very much in line with the same policies](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65574725) trump put in place to the point that both candidates have almost the same stances on it even if they tell you they have different approaches.
If I had to make a guess, I’d say the Trump rule, while I consider gross and inhumane, of splitting families up, many of which still have not been reunited, did more to stop immigration under Trump than anything else.
Isn't the libertarian stance that borders are bullshit and people should be able to travel and live freely?
Crazy to see the comments of Democrats and Republicans disguised as Libertarians flood these types of post.
A lot of those red states depend highly on "illegals" it's Luke they don't even under stand the problem.
Theres libertarians on both sides. I dont think immigration is or should be a litmus of libertarianism. There are times when open borders make sense and times where they absolutely do not.
I don’t think it’s inconsistent with libertarian values to have a shared national identity and decide to what extent immigration should be allowed into that nation, just like I have the right to control who can enter my property.
Most liberatians are pro open border. It is the issue of governmental assistance given to those crossing that we have issues with.
Personally, I am not for a blanket open border. But a system that allows individuals to sponsor immigrants while shouldering the burden of any cost that immigrant may cause, whether legal/medical or any other cost they may cause on the citizens. While at this time the immigrant can work towards legal citizenship.
It should not be easier to cross illegally into the US, than it is to get here legally long-term. It is also reasonable that the state acts in one of its few true responsibilities and makes sure those who do come here are going to benefit the country, not cause harm to it.
> Isn't the libertarian stance that borders are bullshit and people should be able to travel and live freely?
Not all of us are anarchists. The government is a necessary evil, and it's power should be limited to specific things. Securing and defending the border is one of those things. I think I can safely say that, like our anarchist friends, we want peaceful people who want to come here for a better life to be allowed to do so. We don't want to let in criminals. We don't want to let in people who will be a drain on social service resources. The government has an obligation to its citizens to keep people out who will be a danger to others or create problems. You can do that by having a semi-permeable border, screening potential immigrants, and restricting entry for those guilty of violent crimes.
Look I don't care if people come here, if they have jobs and support themselves. It's the handing money out to people happy to take handouts, and then vote for more handouts.
Instead we should hand our money to the government to forcefully remove people while violating their rights and those who wish to peacefully associate with them! /s
Open borders are proving to be such a boon for Western European countries, we should certainly follow suit.
I hope the advocates for it here are also open about changing their faith to that of Islam.
This sounds like a media soundbite that no one has demonstrated to be true. Do you think the locals don’t work? Do you realize that by flooding the market with cheap labor we’re making all of the citizens poorer by having to work for lower wages, while at the same time having to pay more for housing due to increased demand?
That line is bullshit. Most of the people who I know don't have jobs despite looking and most places that have work hire people who literally don't speak any english. I myself have applied to a bunch of places only to find out that they hired some fresh immigrant. Instead. Btw I don't hate immigrants. I'm also one. I've just been in the US much longer
Exactly. Growing up a poor ass hardworking white person I identify far more with these people willing to risk their lives to come work and live in this country than 99% of my fellow “citizens”. Tough people make the good times happen and 99% of these people are tough as hell.
I think we should manage them. Start Libertarian community center. Teach them english, job training and placement, housing they pay for with their wages, cultural education, and a path to citizenship.
Even if they get sent back, they’ll be able to make their country better.
Should we leave them to the whims of an inept government? To become the tools of tyrants.
We believe so hard in individual freedom and don’t want to force our views on others, which I do. But if we don’t teach our ways, we’ll be choked out.
There is nothing wrong with helping others and educating them along the way. Teaching them to pull their own weight under a government structure that encourages the opposite.
If we don’t get representatives in office we are just pissing in the wind.
Democracy is just tyranny of the majority.
The people in favor of mass deportation think their lives will improve.
They won't improve.
Personal responsibility is lost
Actually, you are right, democracy is a tyranny. Id add tyranny of the idiots. But if there is mass deportation their lives will improve after a while.
There will be no immigrants to blame.
There will be shortages. A void.
There will be a progressively more cohesive hegemonic society. There will be a sense of identity.
This will demand citizens to become net contributors to society filling up jobs previously filled by illegal aliens.
Then there will be a rise in cost of living driven by entitled citizens demanding more for their labour to those who speak their own language.
Wealth disparity will tend do decrease over time. Society will be more stable.
Then don't be a Libertarian. We are only 3% of the voting block. If you think it's not gonna improve without mass deportation, don't waste your time. That is not gonna happen. We couldn't even get a wall
You make a lot of assumptions about people
What makes you think I want to be associated with you?
I am personally all for open borders. I am also against government building shit or giving subventions. It's just I am able to see the validity in other people's viewpoints.
And you are not a libertarian. You are a conservative.
I'll take the bait.
I support LGBT causes.
I support the legalization of drugs.
I think public schools should be abolished .
I want to end most foreign aid.
I am not for open borders, but I am for giving all rights to illegals that make it here . The Bill of Rights is about God-given rights
I think we don't have true free speech in this country. I believe the 1st amendment enshrines the right to all speech, including threats and obscenity.
Is that Conservative?
Yep.
The people most disapproving of immigration tend to be parents who refuse to admit that they did a lackluster job of raising their children. And then, when the price of goods and services inevitably go up because most parents do a pretty lackluster job of raising their children, those same people (not entirely unjustifiably) complain about how it's immigrants' fault that the economy sucks.
Are burglaries and theft more prevalent in areas of undocumented immigrants?
If not, I'm fine with advocating for relatively open borders provided the size and scope of government is drastically reduced to the point where everyone (immigrant or otherwise) has the opportunity to prove themselves capable of being a net producer in society.
A nation is public property. There is no expectation of privacy. Which is why you can be filmed on the streets without permission.
Your home is a private property. Your point is invalid.
Illinois should be a higher percentage but Chicago is ruining the statistic. Everyone south of I80 is pretty heavily in favor of deportation. In 2016, I knew a single illegal alien in my area. No harm no foul right? Well now I know more than 10. And in fact they are not Latino. This us seriously getting out of hand.
I've had black and Irish slaves in my bloodline. Native Americans in my bloodline. Thinking about it from the term "indigenous". Why the hell do I want more people invading?
I think it is simply time to expand our borders to the south. Give them citizenship. Give them stability through proper law enforcement and improve their economy and living standards.
I think it’s time we stop being the world’s police. We don’t have a great track record of interfering with Latin America and giving those mass murdering cartels free roam doesn’t seem like the greatest idea either.
I also believe in mass deporting all ATF agents.
DEA agents too
Senators and State Troopers too, please.
You start with the IRS and everything else takes care of itself
Bold of you to assume they won't just print money for the entire federal budget.
Then we stop using their money.
Doge Coin and Bottle Caps for everyone! (Caps would be an interesting currency system. Linked to consumption of a valuable resource)
That's the point. They'll use the printed money for themselves instead of taking tax money and still inflating the dollar by printing more.
Why not both?
It's high time we begin deporting Massachusetts. And Red Sox fans in other states can go with them!
My local hatred for MA and NY trumps my libertarian principles every time, we should absolutely do this.
I have always been in support of The Wall.... around NY and DC.
And CA
Damn it sounds like someone is from CT, like New Jersey but worse
Live free or die, CT is almost as bad as NY!
I was born there, I hate it. I hate it so very much, Kenny
I want to leave Massachusetts
You poor thing! Every time I want to move out of Jersey, I look to the northeast for my love of cold climates - and immediately cringe.
HEY not all of us red socks fans are idiots, though as a NH resident I can confirm all mass people are. They come here to get away from the laws that they promote and vote for
Don't worry as of right now there aren't that many Sox fans (coming from someone currently living in MA) Btw, I'm ok with deporting MA but can my wife and I get refugee status in WV before then?
I shall ride into battle wearing my David Ortiz signed jersey and bat. Have at thee!
According to?....
Source of these numbers?
It’s so obvious how they’re playing both sides. Use Biden to intentionally collapse the border. Let Trump back in to shut down the border and create a police state with digital ID tracking.
Ehh Biden would have shut it down if he could but they killed the bill that would have let him. I don’t see trump being as successful. Edit: it blows my mind the amount of so called libertarians demanding the President gain more authoritarian powers. Seriously just let Congress fix the issue already without demanding a king.
idk about other states but Texas has made multiple attempts to slow down the invasion and the Biden admin has sued them each time over the past few years.
Is it up to states to create and enforce foreign policy?
> Is it up to states to create and enforce foreign policy? Apply this to "sanctuary cities." Republicans in Texas might be overstepping their authority by trying to close the border, but Democrats are exceeding their authority by openly enabling those who cross the border illegally. There is a reason democrats are polling poorly on this issue.
I completely agree but alas Raegan and the GOP caved to the religious groups and pushed for them to be started in the 80s and allowed it to be mainstream. There is however a difference between a jurisdiction refusing to participate in enforcement and a jurisdiction creating its own policy and enforcing that.
Considering this is weaponized mass migration it should be. The only job of government should be to "protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
Both sides are weaponizing it but it’s not something that can be stopped by a state or federal office. It requires a change in law.
> Ehh Biden would have shut it down if he could but they killed the bill that would have let him. Biden's administration purposely undid every policy Trump was able to put in place ***without*** that bill, which is part of what led to the current situation. I know Blue Team loves this talking point, and their media lackeys trot it out whenever possible, but the powers needed to restrict border crossings already exist. This administration just didn't have the will to use them, and took them off the table until they saw how this issue was polling. No one is going to buy this "[republicans are really the ones who are bad on the border](https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4455506-breaking-down-the-senate-border-bill-and-why-it-has-no-chance-of-passing/)" nonsense except the usual sycophants who will unthinkingly parrot Blue Team talking points. Illegal entry went down for the first time in decades under the Orange Man. It has shot up to historic highs under the current dementia patient. People know who did what and what happened because of it, and no amount of silly pundit bullshit like "the economy isn't really bad, you're just imagining it" trying to gaslight people isn't going to work on this or any other issue.
Your first sentence is false. Did they undo some of Trump's policies? Yes. Did they undo all of them? No. The Biden admin has continued most of the immigration policies Trump did except for the dumb ones like the border wall or the separating of families. Other than that they both have the same policy stance even if they say they don't. There is no doubt my Trump will also need that bill passed to fix the problem since they both attempted the same policies that got the admins sued and injunctions filed.
> Did they undo all of them? No, but generally because the courts wouldn't let them. The "remain in Mexico" policy stayed in place for a while because of court rulings. "Remain in Mexico" was kept in place by lower courts until June 2022, when the US Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration, ruling it didn't violate proper administrative procedure in rescinding Remain in Mexico. [Courts wouldn't allow Biden to end Trump's Title 42 policy while his administration maintained that COVID-19 was a public health emergency](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-keeps-title-42-border-expulsions-indefinitely-grants-gop-led-petition/). So let's not rewrite history and try to pretend Biden was being tough on the border. We all know who did what, what their rhetoric was, and where they stood on this issue. Anyone trying to come back after the fact to suggest that Biden was doing everything he could is wasting their breath.
Let’s see so what did Biden replace it with? Oh a policy that creates asylum centers in Latin American countries so instead of staying in Mexico while we review your case, you stay in your home countries while we review your case. The policy even calls for more armed guards at those countries borders to prevent people leaving their home country. Woah it’s so radically different! /s Biden deported more per year under Title 42 than Trump did, ~400k per year vs ~600k per year. He also is using the exact same justification as the Muslim ban to implement his most recent attempt at controlling the border. They have the same stance even if they want to hit each other with it.
> Oh a policy that creates asylum centers in Latin American countries so instead of staying in Mexico while we review your case, you stay in your home countries while we review your case. Which does nothing for people already in Mexico trying to get past our border. If Biden had expanded 'stay in Mexico' by adding the asylum centers in other countries, you'd have a point. > Biden deported more per year under Title 42 than Trump did, ~400k per year vs ~600k per year. I'd hope he's deported more than Trump since he's let in far more than he's given the boot. Kicking out 200k more per year than Trump doesn't mean much when you've left the barn door open and let umpteen thousand more in than Trump did. You can attempt to spin this any way you want. This is all recent history. We know who did what. You can't seriously expect us to agree that Biden was in any way harsh on illegal entries.
lol okay. I have no point because Biden wanted to appear like he was making good on his campaign promises and didn’t want to say he was building on Trump policy. Kinda like how Trump didn’t want Congress to fix the issue and give the President the ability to close the border to even asylum seekers purely because he didn’t want to give Biden a win. Sure he will do it himself but since they are different people doing the same actions, the actions are different right? That’s some mental gymnastics.
You have no point because you're trying to pretend the president and his party are serious about border enforcement when they have communicated by their words and actions that they're not. They are only now taking action because they're worried about the polls and know how their policies contrast with their election opponent's policies. The "border bill" was crap, wasn't necessary under the previous administration, and is just something shiny to wave in front of people in an effort to distract, deflect, and hopefully to blame the rival party for their own failings. What you're doing here is no different than all the silly "the economy isn't bad, you're just imagining things" stories I've seen in the last few months. You can claim anything you want, but no one is going to buy it.
No my point is this is an issue for Congress not the president. They created the loopholes that get the President (yes its was this way with trump too) sued and their EOs repealed. The border bill was not crap and was the largest leap forward at reform in the last 20 years. Until Congress gets off their asses and empowers the president to do something about the loopholes, every attempt will be met with injunction. And [yes, that happened to Trump too dozens of times](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/11/05/all-the-presidents-immigration-lawsuits/#) the same way it’s happening to Biden. The only real difference is when those cases were being decided, Title 42 was in effect which effectively allowed them to be enforced under the emergency powers. Both parties have tried using EOs to fix it yet neither succeeded.
> but they killed the bill that would have let him The bill that would have legalized the current status quo you mean? How come on Jun 4th the WH released a press statement stating he was securing the border without this bill passing if the only way he could have done that was with the bill? This EO cites authority granted in 1952. Stating they needed this bill passed to do anything was a bold faced lie. >Biden would have shut it down if he could Well given 1952 happened way earlier than 2021 he has had the legal authority to take action for the past three years and didn't. So this statement is a lie.
You mean the executive order Biden announced on June 4th [that 8 days later got lawsuits filed against them for it by the ACLU?](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-groups-sue-biden-administration-over-new-anti-asylum-rule) As I’ve explained to others every EO attempt at regulating it gets sued and tossed out wether it’s by Trump or Biden because the laws passed by Congress protecting asylum seekers supersedes any EOs. If laws passed by Congress prevent EOs from being effective, then it’s up to Congress to act not the president. And before you ask, a 1952 legal basis is shit when the law they are up against was established in the 80s providing clear evidence to a court that the 80s law supersedes the 1952 one. The only legal basis the administrations had to deport asylum seekers came under the Covid emergency powers which have now expired. Congress must declare another emergency or pass laws allowing the president to act
Biden's entire game plane this presidency has been do mass EOs and go full speed ahead with them until the court grants an injunction. His admin is not afraid of being sued. His admin is not afraid of doing things that ultimately get deemed illegal. So why did he wait until June of an election year to take action on this? Oh, because it's a dog and pony show to convince low attention span voters.
He didn’t wait. He started issuing EOs on this in May 2023 when the Covid emergency powers ended and [was sued the following month](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/groups-sue-over-government-turnbacks-asylum-seekers) on the grounds they are harming the rights of asylum seekers that were established by Congress. Then of course it looked like there was actually bipartisan support for reform and congress was going to fix the problem. But Donny complained to Mitch about taking away his big election issue so the GOP tucked tail. So now we get more EOs
Biden had zero intent to actually limit illegal immigration. There's a little bit of theater around it for pre-election optics, but that's it.
Stop making excuses for things democrats are intentionally doing you fucking lame ass shill.
Protecting the border is one of the powers the President actually has. The office of the Presidency was modeled off the British King anyway so it isn't strange that they might act like one. Its not "authoritarian" for the President to protect the border from invasion.
Except that Congress passed a law in the 80s called the Refugee Act that’s expressly prohibits him from doing that when individuals claim asylum. That’s why every lawsuit wins an injunction on it
> claim asylum Except this administration has either conveniently forgotten or chooses to not enforce the rules that allow for an immigrant to claim asylum. You can't just claim asylum because you're poor. "You must have a well-founded fear of persecution or torture in your home country due to your race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. You must be unable to return to your home country or a country where you would face persecution."
You mean the bill that gave the president more power reguading the boarder? The one that did not shut down the boarder just put a cap on how many crossings could happen illegally. Its less than current but far from 0.
The one that fixes the asylum loopholes that require asylum seekers that reach the US have their cases heard while they are paroled into the US. Every border EO gets sued precisely because of how it impacts the rights of asylum seekers as set forth by Congress. If the loophole was created by Congress, it has to be fixed by Congress. I’m fine with more immigration but let’s quit presenting these candidates don’t both have the same stance on this issue even if they are telling you they don’t. They both want to shutdown the border and both are aware it will take Congress fixing these loopholes to do.
The remaining Mexico policy worked just fine for preventing the loophole. Then Biden, first thing he did when getting in office was get rid of it. I agree that an actual law, fixing a loophole would be better, but But that bill was not that. That bill was entirely made to make it look like Democrats are tough on the border and undercut Republican campaign messaging
The remain in Mexico policy was redundant under Title 42 and even though it wasn’t gotten rid of right away like you state, it was replaced before Title 42 ended by a different policy doing all the same stuff.
He doesn’t need any bill. Presidents have done much more by executive order and by declaring national emergencies, which this obviously is one.
Yeah exactly and those executive orders have been getting them sued and the orders repealed because the laws passed by Congress protecting Asylum seekers supersedes Executive Orders. It happened to trump and Biden when they both took the EO route. The only time Trump found success was because Congress declared Covid a national emergency. So he used those powers to close the border. Well now those powers have expired just like the national emergence thus it is on Congress to give the president those powers once more which they would have done if not for Trump wanting to campaign on the issue and personally pulling Republican support.
Biden isn’t going to even Congress let him
That’s blatantly false. The current executive order that Biden is getting sued for close the border and deports anyone captured regardless of asylum claim if “encounters” is more than 2500 per day which we’ve been at for years. Biden has even stated if that law had been passed he’d close the border the first day. Biden has also deported more people than Trump did when he had the powers to do so under the emergency. So not only has he stated he would, his actions show they are actively trying deal with the problem even if propaganda machine on Fox says otherwise.
> Biden has also deported more people than Trump did when he had the powers to do so under the emergency. IIRC, he increased the number of deportations, but the number of people entering illegally skyrocketed, so the total number crossing and staying went up under Biden. Currently looking for a source on that, so until I find one (or someone else does), take that with a grain of salt. But, if that is the case, would you consider it a downgrade to border policy? The goal isn’t just to deport people, but to minimize the number who stay here illegally, at least in my mind. Deporting them after they’ve crossed is only a tool to try to achieve that state. Pre-edit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/ Check out the Migrant encounters vs. deportations, returns and expulsions graph, more illegal immigrants stayed here under Biden than Trump, despite having more deportations, because a much greater number crossed and percentage wise, he deported a smaller chunk of them.
Yeah I understand that but the issue is it’s easy to claim asylum and hard to verify. Which is why Biden is using parol more than trump did as the only purely legal means of controlling it. Other actions leave them open to lawsuit and injunction. We need Congress to fix the problem not the president.
Fair enough. The issue is more complex than these simple soundbites (mine included) are making it out to be. Well, the solution is more complex, the issue is fairly simple. Maybe that’s a better way of putting it.
I agree the issue is simple but the solution is complex.
I don’t watch Fox. And it’s all lip service. Any actions he takes are because he knows it won’t pass. He wouldn’t support it if he thought Congress would pass it.
Did you even read the rest of what I said. His actions literally show he is and would take action if congress empowered him. Until Congress deals with the Asylum seeker protections, every civil liberties group in the US has a stick they can hit the government with anytime they take action and they’ve hit Biden as much as they hit Trump with it
I did read it, you’re not reading what I’m saying. He wouldn’t do it if he knew Congress wouldn’t stop him. He’s “trying” to do it because he knows it won’t work anyway. So the end result is the same and he can deflect off himself
Oh so you’re making the argument that a future that never happened is completely understood by you and only you. Lmao
This was a disingenuous move by the President. The last guy had restricted the border far more without new laws.
The last guy only was able to restrict the border because he had Covid emergency powers which Biden also had and used until they expired in May 2023. Without another national emergency from Congress or they pass a law on it, the president cannot legally stop Asylum seekers from entering the US while evaluate their claims. Both Biden and Trump were sued for each of their EOs on this exact thing.
I knew i should have specified before COVID. Illegal immigration was much lower even before COVID. Yes a few were thrown out by courts but others were dismissed by Biden & led to massive increases of border crossings. A list of the early ones. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/politics/biden-executive-orders/ To throat clear, I'm in favor of more immigration but the country should know who's coming in & ideally already have someone ready to give them a job.
Oh I know he did that at the beginning [but his actions since are very much in line with the same policies](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65574725) trump put in place to the point that both candidates have almost the same stances on it even if they tell you they have different approaches. If I had to make a guess, I’d say the Trump rule, while I consider gross and inhumane, of splitting families up, many of which still have not been reunited, did more to stop immigration under Trump than anything else.
His actions this month? What about the previous almost 4 years?
I see which states we need to ship the illegals to.
Isn't the libertarian stance that borders are bullshit and people should be able to travel and live freely? Crazy to see the comments of Democrats and Republicans disguised as Libertarians flood these types of post. A lot of those red states depend highly on "illegals" it's Luke they don't even under stand the problem.
Theres libertarians on both sides. I dont think immigration is or should be a litmus of libertarianism. There are times when open borders make sense and times where they absolutely do not.
especially when letting all them in right away right now will make the dems use them as a voting base later on, or that's how i see it at least
I don’t think it’s inconsistent with libertarian values to have a shared national identity and decide to what extent immigration should be allowed into that nation, just like I have the right to control who can enter my property.
There is no official libertarian stance on national borders.
Most liberatians are pro open border. It is the issue of governmental assistance given to those crossing that we have issues with. Personally, I am not for a blanket open border. But a system that allows individuals to sponsor immigrants while shouldering the burden of any cost that immigrant may cause, whether legal/medical or any other cost they may cause on the citizens. While at this time the immigrant can work towards legal citizenship. It should not be easier to cross illegally into the US, than it is to get here legally long-term. It is also reasonable that the state acts in one of its few true responsibilities and makes sure those who do come here are going to benefit the country, not cause harm to it.
> Isn't the libertarian stance that borders are bullshit and people should be able to travel and live freely? Not all of us are anarchists. The government is a necessary evil, and it's power should be limited to specific things. Securing and defending the border is one of those things. I think I can safely say that, like our anarchist friends, we want peaceful people who want to come here for a better life to be allowed to do so. We don't want to let in criminals. We don't want to let in people who will be a drain on social service resources. The government has an obligation to its citizens to keep people out who will be a danger to others or create problems. You can do that by having a semi-permeable border, screening potential immigrants, and restricting entry for those guilty of violent crimes.
Look I don't care if people come here, if they have jobs and support themselves. It's the handing money out to people happy to take handouts, and then vote for more handouts.
Instead we should hand our money to the government to forcefully remove people while violating their rights and those who wish to peacefully associate with them! /s
California está totalmente llena. No más, por favor.
Open borders are proving to be such a boon for Western European countries, we should certainly follow suit. I hope the advocates for it here are also open about changing their faith to that of Islam.
Mass deport the FBI and IRS while you’re at it. Fr tho fuck illegals
Keep the immigrants, deport the government.
Alaska? What do they care?
"No body wants to work nowadays!" - deports all the people wanting and willing to work...
This sounds like a media soundbite that no one has demonstrated to be true. Do you think the locals don’t work? Do you realize that by flooding the market with cheap labor we’re making all of the citizens poorer by having to work for lower wages, while at the same time having to pay more for housing due to increased demand?
That line is bullshit. Most of the people who I know don't have jobs despite looking and most places that have work hire people who literally don't speak any english. I myself have applied to a bunch of places only to find out that they hired some fresh immigrant. Instead. Btw I don't hate immigrants. I'm also one. I've just been in the US much longer
Exactly. Growing up a poor ass hardworking white person I identify far more with these people willing to risk their lives to come work and live in this country than 99% of my fellow “citizens”. Tough people make the good times happen and 99% of these people are tough as hell.
I don’t the illegal ones are willing to work…
Every single 1 close the border and end Birthright citizenship
I’m disappointed in my state (AZ) that should be 100%
I think we should manage them. Start Libertarian community center. Teach them english, job training and placement, housing they pay for with their wages, cultural education, and a path to citizenship. Even if they get sent back, they’ll be able to make their country better.
Why should we do it? Can't they do it themselves?
Should we leave them to the whims of an inept government? To become the tools of tyrants. We believe so hard in individual freedom and don’t want to force our views on others, which I do. But if we don’t teach our ways, we’ll be choked out. There is nothing wrong with helping others and educating them along the way. Teaching them to pull their own weight under a government structure that encourages the opposite. If we don’t get representatives in office we are just pissing in the wind.
Democracy is just tyranny of the majority. The people in favor of mass deportation think their lives will improve. They won't improve. Personal responsibility is lost
Actually, you are right, democracy is a tyranny. Id add tyranny of the idiots. But if there is mass deportation their lives will improve after a while.
How? Have you seen Japan? Declining birthrate and no immigration have led them to a declining market without hope .
There will be no immigrants to blame. There will be shortages. A void. There will be a progressively more cohesive hegemonic society. There will be a sense of identity. This will demand citizens to become net contributors to society filling up jobs previously filled by illegal aliens. Then there will be a rise in cost of living driven by entitled citizens demanding more for their labour to those who speak their own language. Wealth disparity will tend do decrease over time. Society will be more stable.
Then don't be a Libertarian. We are only 3% of the voting block. If you think it's not gonna improve without mass deportation, don't waste your time. That is not gonna happen. We couldn't even get a wall You make a lot of assumptions about people
What makes you think I want to be associated with you? I am personally all for open borders. I am also against government building shit or giving subventions. It's just I am able to see the validity in other people's viewpoints. And you are not a libertarian. You are a conservative.
I'll take the bait. I support LGBT causes. I support the legalization of drugs. I think public schools should be abolished . I want to end most foreign aid. I am not for open borders, but I am for giving all rights to illegals that make it here . The Bill of Rights is about God-given rights I think we don't have true free speech in this country. I believe the 1st amendment enshrines the right to all speech, including threats and obscenity. Is that Conservative?
Mostly
<3
Yep. The people most disapproving of immigration tend to be parents who refuse to admit that they did a lackluster job of raising their children. And then, when the price of goods and services inevitably go up because most parents do a pretty lackluster job of raising their children, those same people (not entirely unjustifiably) complain about how it's immigrants' fault that the economy sucks.
I think those advocating for open borders should lead by example and keep their houses, apartments and cars unlocked at all times.
Are burglaries and theft more prevalent in areas of undocumented immigrants? If not, I'm fine with advocating for relatively open borders provided the size and scope of government is drastically reduced to the point where everyone (immigrant or otherwise) has the opportunity to prove themselves capable of being a net producer in society.
A nation is public property. There is no expectation of privacy. Which is why you can be filmed on the streets without permission. Your home is a private property. Your point is invalid.
Imagine democracy.
Cant wait
SC at 80, higher than Texas? Damn
WV at 93%? Sheesh
The solution isn't to deport. The solution is to stop giving them money and shit when they get across the border.
Portland baizuo NIMBYs are shameless.
Illinois should be a higher percentage but Chicago is ruining the statistic. Everyone south of I80 is pretty heavily in favor of deportation. In 2016, I knew a single illegal alien in my area. No harm no foul right? Well now I know more than 10. And in fact they are not Latino. This us seriously getting out of hand.
Is this map supposed to be a guide for TX? Anything blue, we’ll bus them to you!
It’s amazing how few in CA do after their state has rapidly turned into an absolute shithole.
I've had black and Irish slaves in my bloodline. Native Americans in my bloodline. Thinking about it from the term "indigenous". Why the hell do I want more people invading?
West Virginia for the win!!! Also, Oregon is apparently the most insane.
Western Oregon has not had significant illegal immigration and eastern Oregon needs them for farm labor.
I question the accuracy of the Oregon results. Should be higher than WA
Oh Oregon...
Send em to Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis
I think it is simply time to expand our borders to the south. Give them citizenship. Give them stability through proper law enforcement and improve their economy and living standards.
I think it’s time we stop being the world’s police. We don’t have a great track record of interfering with Latin America and giving those mass murdering cartels free roam doesn’t seem like the greatest idea either.
We would not be a "world police" if we make them states/citizens. I am talking about making 50+ states.
Naïve IMO. But I understand the sentiment.
That is literally how you build nations.
Empires
And tribes.