SirWinston with the kill-shot. The best thing about X is brutal takedowns like this.
Border thread part II
- Thread starter 92tide
- Start date
SirWinston with the kill-shot. The best thing about X is brutal takedowns like this.
They hose us with sales taxes and property taxes
Every 2-4 years, like clockwork, this is a top issue and then....crickets. This year republicans thought it was such a big problem that they passed on a chance to enact new legislation to help with the border problems. Because that's how much they really care.
I also remember the time when certain conservative minded folks would say that executive orders were overreach and the proper way to address problems was through legislation.
I also remember the time when certain conservative minded folks would say that executive orders were overreach and the proper way to address problems was through legislation.
President Trump Reduced Legal Immigration. He Did Not Reduce Illegal Immigration
President Trump also entered the White House with the goal of eliminating illegal immigration but Trump oversaw a virtual collapse in interior immigration enforcement and the stabilization of the illegal immigrant population. Thus, Trump succeeded in reduce legal immigration and failed to eliminate illegal immigration.
...
Although Trump succeeded in cutting legal immigration more than he initially planned, he oversaw the collapse of interior immigration enforcement. In 2020, the removal of illegal immigrants from the interior of the United States was the lowest as an absolute number and as a share of the illegal immigration population since ICE was created in 2003 (Figure 3).
Tim Scott’s faulty math on Biden illegal immigration data
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., on his quest for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination has been posting statistics on soci
www.politifact.com
"Encounters" data released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection since the policy’s implementation included expulsions under the public health policy and enforcement actions under immigration law, such as apprehensions and determinations of inadmissibility.
Before that, CBP provided only the number of enforcement actions under immigration law.
Because of this tracking change, "it’s not possible" to directly compare "encounters" across administrations "simply because there were no ‘encounters’ during the Obama administration and during the majority of the Trump administration," said John Gramlich, an immigration expert with the Pew Research Center.
...
Immigration data changed in March 2020, complicating an exact data comparison across administrations. However, the available data doesn’t support his claim, either.
___
Two things stick out to me:
1. Republicans making false claims and manipulating the data to make it appear the data support their assertions when the data do not
2. This is probably the more important one: There was a change in reporting from enforcement actions to encounters. This makes comparisons from one administration to another much more difficult. It's apples to oranges.
Advocates: Trump policies are causing surge in illegal border crossing
Word is spreading that migrants now have to wait months in dangerous Mexican border cities before asking for asylum at a legal port of entry.
www.nbcnews.com
Since Trump restricted flow at border, more migrants trying to sneak through undetected
Word is spreading that migrants now have to wait months in dangerous Mexican border cities before asking for asylum at a legal port of entry.
March 1, 2019,
Undocumented immigrants are increasingly choosing to cross the U.S. border illegally rather than waiting in line to claim asylum at legal ports of entry, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data obtained by NBC News.
Immigration lawyers and rights advocates say asylum seekers are opting for illegal crossing because they are growing frustrated with waiting lines caused by Trump administration policies. Advocates say immigrants who might otherwise have presented themselves at legal ports are now going between entry points where, if caught, they can remain in the country while awaiting an asylum hearing.
In recent months, CBP has restricted the number of immigrants who can be processed for asylum at ports of entry and has begun turning back asylum seekers, who must now wait in Mexico while their cases are decided.
CBP data shows that at the same time, the proportion of immigrants caught crossing illegally rather than through legal ports of entry has been rising.
It climbed from 73 percent of border crossings between October 2017 and January to 2018 to 83 percent for the same period ending this January 31. The percentage reporting to legal ports of entry, meanwhile, dropped from 27 percent to 17 percent, even as the overall number of border crossings rose sharply, according to the data.
______________
Talk about unintended consequences and policies having an effect on illegal immigration.
As I look into this topic it seems the narrative does not match the facts.
I used google to search "how many illegal immigrants under trump". That seems like a good way to look for information. Maybe google is feeding me what I want to see, or maybe I'm right about the narrative not matching the facts.
Following President Biden's State of the Union Address, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., used a story about sex trafficking to criticize the Biden administration's border policies. But the events occurred in Mexico nearly 20 years ago. Sen. Britt doubled down on her remarks during a Sunday interview, and the Morning Joe panel discusses.
_________________
Are republicans allergic to the truth?
And why do independents keep giving them cover?
i'm shocked that reality is completely different from what the trumpettes say
I'm actually surprised that some independents keep letting them slide on it. I thought independents didn't care about partisanship and sought out truth so we could actually work on making problems better. No blue font.
This is just sane rational policy by the Democratic Party. These people are on point. 😂
California AB2031 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session
Bill Text (2024-03-12) One California program. [In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.]
Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services, subject to an appropriation, to provide grants to qualified nonprofit organizations through contracts, in order to provide persons with certain immigration-related legal services. Under existing law, a component of those grants is aimed at legal services to unaccompanied undocumented minors who are transferred to the care and custody of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement and who are present in the state.
This bill would make changes to the criteria for organizations providing legal services to those minors, including adjustments to qualifications based on the organization’s history of professional experience.
Under existing law, another component of those grants is aimed at services relating to immigration remedies and naturalization, among other processes, to assist persons residing in, or formerly residing in, the state.
This bill would expand those qualifying services to persons having an intent to reside in and having a nexus to the state, and would expand the scope of services to include, among other things, legal representation and related services for removal defense. The bill would make changes to the definitions of various terms relating to legal services and immigration remedies.
Existing law prohibits use of the grant funds to provide legal services to an individual who has been convicted of, or who is currently appealing a conviction for, a violent or serious felony.
This bill would remove that prohibition on the use of funds for those individuals.
____________
This bill appears to only be related to legal services for unaccompanied and undocumented minors.
I live in CA and don't have a problem making sure that this particular very vulnerable population receives adequate legal representation.
Either way, they receive legal representation free of charge if they can't afford it, so what is the big deal here?
Nothing about minors in the bolded part above. How many minors do you know have been convicted of a violent or serious felony?Under existing law, another component of those grants is aimed at services relating to immigration remedies and naturalization, among other processes, to assist persons residing in, or formerly residing in, the state.California AB2031 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session
Bill Text (2024-03-12) One California program. [In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.]legiscan.com
This bill would expand those qualifying services to persons having an intent to reside in and having a nexus to the state, and would expand the scope of services to include, among other things, legal representation and related services for removal defense. The bill would make changes to the definitions of various terms relating to legal services and immigration remedies.
Existing law prohibits use of the grant funds to provide legal services to an individual who has been convicted of, or who is currently appealing a conviction for, a violent or serious felony.
This bill would remove that prohibition on the use of funds for those individuals.
____________
This bill appears to only be related to legal services for unaccompanied and undocumented minors.
I live in CA and don't have a problem making sure that this particular very vulnerable population receives adequate legal representation.
Either way, they receive legal representation free of charge if they can't afford it, so what is the big deal here?
Furthermore, I presented the tweet w/o comment because the truth of the matter is, I'm not particularly concerned about how CA wastes its dollars. I'm not funding it, so y'all do what you want. I just thought it was an interesting bill that could conceivably spread across like-minded states and the political fallout would be bad for the blues in November if it moves quickly enough. If CA wants to step on the rake, that's fine by me. This happening in a battleground state, however, could prove disastrous.
There's also the fact that @Bamaro showed that the number of a million deportations per year are just flat wrong. If memory serves, the real number was somewhere just north of 142,000.
Dude...it was right there the whole time but I bolded the entire portion for you:
This bill would make changes to the criteria for organizations providing legal services to those minors, including adjustments to qualifications based on the organization’s history of professional experience.
_________________
So, yes, this is only in relation to minors and expands already existing legal services for them.
It's really not a big deal, despite what "endwokeness" (unbiased as they may be) tells you.
It’s quite clear that what I said the bill is is exactly what the bill itself says it is. What makes you think otherwise?
New Posts
-
Former player Mike Johnson overview on Kalen DeBoer and Bama after two years- Latest: tusks_n_raider
-
-
Bama Game Thread: MBB Bama vs UT in Coleman - Sat Jan 24 - 7:30 CST ESPN- Latest: TideEngineer08
-
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Denny to follow longtime Sooners AD Castiglione- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: NCAA approves jersey patches beginning Aug. 1
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Ex-TCU coach Patterson joins USC as Riley's DC
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
New classifications for 26/27- 27/28 school years- Started by AlistarWills
- Replies: 1
-
ESPN: Texas QB Manning undergoes 'minor' foot surgery
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
IRAN: What do we reasonably expect from a military confrontation in that country?- Started by Its On A Slab
- Replies: 0