Chinese are crossing at southern border

Problem with EVERYTHING you said its nothing but Republican lies and misinformation.  You WANT to believe the lies and misinformation so you do and then get upset because I and others do not.

When Trump uses words like vermin and poisoning the blood of our country, invasion etc, it is racist and xenophobic.

When Republicans use words like "illegals" and "aliens", it is absolutely racist and xenophobic.


Also just to repeat, the Democrats are trying to solve problems at the border. They are trying to fix the broken asylum system and provide more funding for border control. Republicans insisted on a bill, negotiated a bill and the voted no on Trump's orders. It was not a bad bill, the Democrats gave Republicans a lot of what they were asking for. The border patrol union supported the bill. Republicans did not vote no because it was a bad bit, they voted no because Trump told them to. They voted no because they want the problem for their campaigns, they don't want a solution.

Despite what Rubio or anyone else claims, the border is not in fact open. But, I think you know this. The Republican narrative of open borders might actually be contributing to the problem.

www.axios.com/2023/10/17/us-mexico-border-open-borders-myth

The big picture: By using the term "open border," conservatives — including Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who is seeking the role of House speaker — are suggesting that anyone can get into the U.S. without much hassle. But the reality is that the southern border is more fortified than it's ever been.

Reality check: Since 1992, the U.S. has quadrupled the number of Border Patrol agents — from less than 5,000 to nearly 20,000 today.

Barriers, walls, and fences have been erected along portions of the 1,951-mile U.S.-Mexico border, in addition to new Border Patrol outposts and high-tech surveillance systems.

The Border Patrol regularly breaks border arrest records, highlighting the difficulty of entering the country illegally.

Most recently, Biden decided to go forward with a border wall in South Texas.

Lines at ports of entry have gotten longer because of new requirements to enter the U.S., putting pressure to expand hours at newer ports of entry like the one in Santa Teresa, New Mexico.

What they're saying: "We don't have open borders because the U.S. government is attempting to stop as many people who cross the border as they can," David J. Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, tells Axios.

In fact, the Biden Administration is now deporting migrants to Mexico even if they aren't from Mexico.

"If the administration was pursuing any kind of open border policy, the number of people being arrested would be dropping. And that's not the case. They're arresting and expelling as many people as ever."




www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/lies-half-truths-immigration-republican-presidential-debate-rcna117865

Statements such as the border is "open" and former President Donald Trump reduced illegal immigration by 90% are not true.

Right? It seems to me that instead of blaming Biden for “open borders” republicans are actually saying that border patrol must not be doing their jobs.

Let’s be honest here. The message to come and that the border is open has been coming from republicans. I specifically remember Biden telling people NOT to come quite awhile ago. But who has been repeating the open border rhetoric? You and your party. Hmmm…wonder why? Are you really that obtuse as to not see how it is worsening the problem? Or is it on purpose to make it more of a problem for a democratic president? Either are deplorable at best.

Marco Rubio not being truthful again

No one is dismissing rape, robberies or murder. We're not even dismissing cherry picked cases based on a legal document and citizenship status.

We're saying that the words illegals, aliens, vermin, poisoning the blood of our country are de-humanizing, racist and xenophobic.

There is a solution on the table for problems at the border but after insisting on it and negotiating it, the Republicans rejected it, following Trump's orders.

NBC News….  link

”The bipartisan border deal would not allow 5,000 illegal crossings per day, despite what Trump says”

By Julie Tsirkin

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson and other right-wing Republicans say they oppose a bipartisan immigration deal because it would allow 5,000 migrants to illegally cross the southern border every day.

“It is illegal to cross our border. But apparently, we’re concocting some sort of deal to allow the president to shut down the border after 5,000 people break the law," Johnson, R-La., said last month before the text had been released. "Why is it 5,000? If you add that up, that’d be a million more illegals into our country every year before we take remedial measures. It’s madness. We shouldn’t be asking what kind of enforcement authority kicks in at 5,000 illegal crossings a day, because the number should be zero.”

Trump made a similar claim to reporters: "That’s a terrible bill. Five thousand a day? That’s a lot. That’s, like, record-setting stuff."

But that's not actually what the bipartisan deal released on Feb. 4 would do. Here's what we know:

Migrants would not just be released into the U.S.

Migrants would not be able to just cross the border illegally under the new bill. It would end the practice of "catch and release," in which Border Patrol agents release migrants into the U.S. while they await immigration hearings.

Instead, migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews.

The bill does provide exceptions from detention for unaccompanied minors and families even if they cross the border illegally between ports of entry. But those migrants would be placed under community supervision; what that looks like would be at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security.

What about migrants who try to cross legally with asylum claims?

If the deal were to become law, migrants who come to the U.S. border at official ports of entry would be diverted to a new "removal authority program" in which they would have 90 days to make their initial asylum interviews. Those migrants would not be released into the interior of the U.S., either; they would either be detained or kept under government supervision.

If they failed their initial asylum interviews, they would be removed immediately.

But migrants who passed the asylum interview would get to stay in the country for an additional 90 days until their asylum cases were decided. In the meantime, they would receive work authorizations while they await adjudication of their cases. If their cases succeed, they would qualify for a path to citizenship.

So where did this 5,000-a-day figure come from?

The bipartisan deal does include provisions that would shut down the border entirely if a certain threshold is hit, but those are border encounters, not crossings. As noted above, no migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally would be allowed into the country unless they passed asylum interviews or were being held under government supervision.

Under the new immigration bill, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure.

What happens if the border is closed?

If the border were shut down, at least 1,400 migrants per day who tried to enter at official ports of entry would still qualify to have their asylum claims considered. The rest would be turned away.

Migrants encountered between ports of entry would be immediately turned away. If the same person tried to cross twice when the border was shut down between ports of entry, the person would be barred from entering the U.S. for one year.

To reopen the border, crossings would need to slow to below 75% of the number that triggered the border closure for seven days. DHS would then have up to two weeks to slowly reopen the border based on capacity.

There would be a limit to how long the border could be shut down, to avoid abuse of the authority. For 2024, it would be capped at 270 days, but the number is designed to fluctuate year by year, as negotiators hope that migrant crossings would slow with the new law in place.

The threshold for asylum claims would remain unchanged

The legislation would make changes to the asylum interview process, but the actual threshold for having an asylum claim approved would not be impacted.

Instead, the bill would front-load some barriers to eligibility earlier in the interview process to weed out migrants whose claims do not qualify. The bill also places many asylum determinations in the hands of asylum officers rather than judges in the interest of expediency. Many progressives have decried that provision as a violation of due process for asylum seekers.

The bill is designed to discourage illegal crossings

Over time, negotiators believe, the legislation and ending the practice of catch and release would encourage migrants to seek asylum lawfully at ports of entry rather than try to cross illegally between ports of entry.

The bill would also raise the standard to seek asylum. And it would provide other resources for the border, including increasing detention capacity for migrants who were held pending asylum claims.”

 

Keep in mind this is the bill the House Republicans tanked on orders from dumpster don.  What SHOULD have happened is the bill should have been brought to the House floor for debate and possible changes.   You know what we elect these guys for.

No, it does not allow 5,000 people to enter the US illegally per day.  In fact, the number of illegal crossings is likely to drop under the proposed legislation 

www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/feb/06/steve-scalise/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000/

No, the Senate immigration bill does not allow 5,000 people to illegally enter the U.S. daily

The Senate’s immigration bill gives the executive branch emergency authority to bar most migrants from seeking asylum if unauthorized immigration at the border reaches an average of 5,000 encounters a day during seven consecutive days.

That does not mean that 5,000 people are allowed to illegally enter the U.S.

Encounters track the number of times immigration officials stop people trying to enter the U.S., not the number of people who are released into the country.



apnews.com/article/border-bill-opposition-republicans-senate-189ee196093a0dbfb1d522e2d552e31a

Lankford has repeatedly emphasized that the emergency authority “is not designed to let 5,000 people in, it is designed to close the border and turn 5,000 people around.”

After meeting with Republicans in the Capitol Monday evening, Lankford told reporters that people understand it once he explains it, “but it’s been said wrong so many times that people immediately just go back to, ‘this lets 5,000 people in a day,’ which is just factually wrong, but if you say it enough, it just sounds true.”

At the same time, Lankford signaled openness to tweaking the bill as Republicans have lined up against it.

Sinema noted that many of those people are now released into the country under current law. “We are giving tools to this administration and future administrations to actually gain control of the border,” she said.

Murphy posted on X: “This line of attack (the bill “accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day”) is just made up bad faith nonsense.”



www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/us/politics/border-deal-immigration.html

No, Border Deal Won’t ‘Allow’ 5,000 Unauthorized Immigrants a Day
Republican critics are misrepresenting one provision of a bipartisan deal to suggest that it permits 5,000 illegal crossings a day.

Republican critics have quickly twisted one element of a bipartisan compromise bill unveiled on Sunday to misleadingly suggest that it permits 5,000 migrants to enter the country illegally every day.

The legislation, which links additional funding in military aid for Ukraine with immigration policy, would more aggressively tamp down on illegal crossings at the U.S. border with Mexico.

The claim has become a popular talking point, reflecting broader pushback by Republicans who have seized on the border security provisions in the $118.3 billion bill and derided them as too lax.

But the bill does not, in fact, authorize immigrants to cross the border illegally. Instead, among other provisions, it would give officials the authority to summarily remove migrants, with little recourse, after a certain number cross: an average of 5,000 encounters per day for a week, or 8,500 in a single day.

The legislation seeks to make it harder for people to claim asylum and expedite that process; expand federal detention capacity; and provide funding for other border investments, including hiring asylum officers and border security agents, among other things. It does not say that 5,000 immigrants are allowed to illegally enter per day.

Instead, the bill uses that number to help determine when a new, stringent emergency authority can take effect to more easily expel migrants, regardless of whether they intend to seek asylum.

“We already have more than 5,000 illegal crossings happening,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior adviser for immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, wrote in an email. “We aren’t ‘allowing it’; it is happening, and we then have to deal with it.”

Under current law, migrants who cross the border illegally are allowed to seek asylum, setting off a lengthy process in which they await a decision.

Under the deal, the provision at the heart of Republicans’ claims would establish a mechanism in which officials would be required to effectively shut the border to migrants trying to illegally enter the United States and remove them en masse. The mechanism would be triggered after the number of encounters reached an average of 5,000 per day over a week — or 8,500 in a given day. Encounters would need to drop drastically before that shutdown is lifted. The bill would also give the secretary of homeland security the ability to carry out the same authority earlier, with an average of 4,000 encounters per day for a week.

This power would “allow for summary deportations of migrants and deny them the chance to apply for any way to stay in the U.S. other than very limited circumstances,” Ms. Brown said.

She likened the proposed authority to Title 42, a health rule that used the coronavirus as grounds for quickly turning back immigrants illegally crossing the border, from March 2020 until the policy ended in May.

In December, the Border Patrol reported more than 250,000 encounters — or a daily average of about 8,000 — according to Customs and Border Protection data.

Even before the proposed thresholds are met, migrants caught crossing the border illegally would still be taken into custody and processed, facing the prospect of deportation.

Experts pointed out that in light of the stricter border security measures in the compromise bill, the number of unauthorized crossings was likely to dip.

“The bill would not allow for the entry of 5,000 unauthorized immigrants a day,” Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokeswoman for the Migration Policy Institute, said in an email. “In fact, it would lead to reduced unauthorized entries because it mandates a higher bar to be considered for asylum and puts in place a swifter screening process with limits on review in case of denial, and there are increased capacities for detention and removal.”

She added, “With or without that 5,000 trigger, anyone intercepted crossing the border illegally would face a higher bar to consideration for asylum.”

Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican who helped draft the bill, has also pushed back on claims it greenlit the illegal entry of 5,000 migrants a day.

“This authority is a 5,000 authority to say if you get to 5,000 — which we have been there every single day except for seven in the last four months — that it completely closes the border down, it deports everyone,” he said on Monday on Fox News.

Yes, they did.
All anybody has to do is reread this thread after I posted about some of the crimes, to see your statement for the lie that it is.

Not to mention if *I* had been the one that deflected and dismissed your concerns on such things, as hard as some of you did, *I* would have been accused of supporting rape, robberies, murders and child rape.

Yes, they are. Yes, YOU are.
It's ALL deflection and dismissal.




We? Where?
Let's make it simple and just look at YOUR posts. All 39 of them.
Not one single teeny tiny mention of even just YOU "acknowledging those crimes are horrific".
Not one. 

I did acknowledge there are horrific crimes committed by migrants. 

No one is dismissing them.

Again, the important part - Your 8 posts on crimes committed by migrants, cherry picked solely on legal status is disingenuous if you are not condemning crimes committed by US born citizens. It's not OK to stereotype an entire group of people based on a few select anecdotes. We've shown you the statistics, migrants are not committing crimes at a higher rate than US citizens.

Also, you support the party and candidate that is pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro NRA. If you're really concerned about violent crimes, support candidates that support reasonable common sense gun safety legislation.

Yes, you mentioned it. I stand corrected.

You mentioned it- not at ALL in ANY compassionate form.

The entire context shows that its clear, intended purpose was completely to dismiss and deflect.
As was every single one of your posts in reponse to the rapes, robberies, murders, and CHILD rapes. To dismiss and deflect. 

Apparently, I wasn't compassionate enough.  I am compassionate for all of the victims of rape, murder and other violent crimes, especially young victims.  My compassion is not however limited to just victims of crimes perpetrated by undocumented immigrants.  I have compassion for all of the victims, regardless of the legal status of the perpetrator.  

I have sympathy for all of the victims of gun violence and mass shootings. The common denominator in mass shootings is not the legal status of the shooter (although most are white males, born in the US). The common denominator is easy access to guns.  I am sympathetic to the victims of mass shootings who are traumatized all over again every time there is another mass shooting. I am compassionate for my own children, the kids I work with and the millions ok kids who have been in school post Columbine. Sadly, schools are no longer safe places and kids have to practice active shooter drills. I have compassion for the victims of mass shootings at clubs, movie theaters, churches, grocery stores etc. People were just going about their daily lives and were terrorized by someone with a gun, frequently an assault rifle.  It's the guns and it's long past time to pass common sense gun safety legislation.