"Closing the border" is a meaningless statement where the southern US border is concerned. More than a thousand miles of border, much of it sparsely inhabited, and he's going to secure it all?
Sure.
So just because we can't solve ALL of a problem doesn't mean we shouldn't solve SOME of the problem?
"No point in going on a diet, I'll still have to eat food."
We can solve a good deal of the issue by enforcing labor laws against exploitative companies and making it easier to immigrate to work. Shameful that Democrats and Republicans are more or less on the same page when it comes to immigration policy.
Shameful that Democrats and Republicans are more or less on the same page when it comes to immigration policy.
This goes beyond immigration policy. There's large swaths of situations in our country that both major parties agree on. One thing that comes to mind is the bank bailouts. Most citizens were against this, but it was wildly popular in both parties.
Go figure, when you take a group of mostly rich people and stick them together in Congress, they are increasingly out of touch with the average citizen, and at times, even opposed to the interests of the people they are supposedly representing.
If request for asylum is not heard and immigration are simply deported, it would be shutting down the border.
I mean the article explains exactly what he meant:
"A bipartisan bill would be good for America and help fix our broken immigration system and allow speedy access for those who deserve to be here, and Congress needs to get it done,” Biden said. “It’ll also give me as president, the emergency authority to shut down the border until it could get back under control. If that bill were the law today, I’d shut down the border right now and fix it quickly.”
The deal being negotiated in Congress would require the U.S. to shutter the border if roughly 5,000 migrants cross illegally on any given day.
Questions that beg answers:
Who "deserves" to be here? What criteria are we using?
What constitutes "under control?" This feels like a 9/11-ish Patriot Act sort of open-ended law.
How does one "shut down" a 2000 mile long border without meaningful defenses?
What constitutes a fix?
How are we tracking migrants, given that plenty of people slip through unnoticed, or cross legally and remain illegally?
Who “deserves” to be here? What criteria are we using?
See: existing immigration laws
What constitutes “under control?” This feels like a 9/11-ish Patriot Act sort of open-ended law.
Only controlled, legal crossings
How does one “shut down” a 2000 mile long border without meaningful defenses?
You don't. There will be defenses (intrusion detection, border guards, etc.)
What constitutes a fix?
All immigration into the US is in compliance with our current regulations.
How are we tracking migrants, given that plenty of people slip through unnoticed, or cross legally and remain illegally?
It's almost impossible to live off the map in the US. Will we find every person that illegally snuck into the country? No. But, we will find some of them and either deport or naturalize them.
So basically, we are expanding the scope of government oversight and surveillance to pursue a dubious policy that has a very low probability of success, to enforce immigration laws that are archaic, unnessessarily restrctive, and utterly ineffective.
With respect, bullshit.
"Closing the border" is a meaningless statement where the southern US border is concerned. More than a thousand miles of border, much of it sparsely inhabited, and he's going to secure it all?
Sure.
So just because we can't solve ALL of a problem doesn't mean we shouldn't solve SOME of the problem?
"No point in going on a diet, I'll still have to eat food."
We can solve a good deal of the issue by enforcing labor laws against exploitative companies and making it easier to immigrate to work. Shameful that Democrats and Republicans are more or less on the same page when it comes to immigration policy.
This goes beyond immigration policy. There's large swaths of situations in our country that both major parties agree on. One thing that comes to mind is the bank bailouts. Most citizens were against this, but it was wildly popular in both parties.
Go figure, when you take a group of mostly rich people and stick them together in Congress, they are increasingly out of touch with the average citizen, and at times, even opposed to the interests of the people they are supposedly representing.
If request for asylum is not heard and immigration are simply deported, it would be shutting down the border.
I mean the article explains exactly what he meant:
Questions that beg answers:
See: existing immigration laws
Only controlled, legal crossings
You don't. There will be defenses (intrusion detection, border guards, etc.)
All immigration into the US is in compliance with our current regulations.
It's almost impossible to live off the map in the US. Will we find every person that illegally snuck into the country? No. But, we will find some of them and either deport or naturalize them.
So basically, we are expanding the scope of government oversight and surveillance to pursue a dubious policy that has a very low probability of success, to enforce immigration laws that are archaic, unnessessarily restrctive, and utterly ineffective.