Biden won't reverse course and go full Obama at this point. They would scorch him for not doing the last 3 years. Not sure why dems are paying attention to the influx now.
lol...you never fail to give me a chuckle...keep voting not for Trump brah. Funny how everyone who says that bashes the dogshit out of the Biden admin but it's all good, anyone with half a brain knows where your loyalty is and it ain't with the US.
Full Obama how? Obama never closed the border either. Just like Trump and Biden he was also bound by the same laws and funding situation requiring Congress to act.
Each president has their own set of policies regarding the border/immigration. Biden instituted his on day 1 by reversing the items the last president had in place which jump-started the biggest migration we have ever seen.
There has only been one cabinet member impeached (and also convicted) in our history - William Belknap. He was impeached for kickbacks from army contracts. The House impeachment of Mayorkas is only the 2nd such effort in our history. He's being impeached for 'breaching public trust and refusing to enforce immigration law'. This is clearly crossing over into politics and not a crime. Even if he did not enforce the law, that wouldn't be a crime but a political issue for the administration. The facts are that he and everyone in his position in previous administrations has tried to do what they could given what they are provided. The administration has in fact asked for funding for years to manage the border, but Congress has not done so. Congress has breached public trust all the time (and so have many politicians). Congress has not provided funding to the administration to "enforce" immigration in an effective way. If Mayorkas is to be impeached for this reason, Congress itself is guilty in the second degree.
Except that Biden kept the access at the border under COvId rules that largely kept out a lot of border crossing. The USSC said the administration couldn’t continue those rules and that’s when border crossings started increasing heavily Also even with a lot of Trump admin policies border crossings were much higher under Trump than under Obama. The Trump Admin said this themselves and also they they couldn’t make significant changes without Congressional action.
Title 42 was not reversed on day 1 and by law, had to be removed once the health emergency was over, which was ~1.5 year later. That was the only notable difference AFAIK. Everything else is pretty similar. (I'm not counting the so-called child separation policy since the Trump admin stopped that after court ordered them to). What else did you think he reversed on day 1?
OpEd: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and others now claim Biden doesn’t need new legislation to crack down on the border. Instead, they allege Biden can use his existing authority to reduce immigration by reviving all the executive actions that Trump had put into place. “If [Biden] wants our conference to view him as a good faith negotiator, he can start with the stroke of a pen,” Johnson said. There are a few problems with this claim. First, Biden has already issued more than 500 immigration-related executive actions, more than Trump announced over four years, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Biden has arguably exhausted the extent of his presidential authority, and so far his measures haven’t stemmed the tide of border crossings. Second, if Biden hasn’t revived Trump’s specific policies — as Republicans urge him to do — that’s largely because so many Trump policies were found to be illegal. Of the 35 major Trump-era immigration agency actions that faced legal challenges, 33 (94 percent) did not survive litigation — that is, either the court ruled against the relevant agency or the agency withdrew the action after being sued. These numbers are from the New York University Institute for Policy Integrity’s regulatory challenge database. Even when Republican-appointed judges presided over such cases, Trump immigration actions were unsuccessful 90 percent of the time. To be fair, one specific Trump-era program that Johnson wants to revive, informally known as “Remain in Mexico,” is the subject of legal cases that are still working their way through the courts. But any final court decision on this policy might not matter much. Why? It’s unclear whether this program ever effectively deterred unlawful border crossings (though it did expose desperate migrants to rape, kidnapping, torture and other dangers). More important, the Mexican government has said it would not cooperate if the United States were to reboot the program, regardless of what U.S. courts decide. Johnson has also demanded that Biden begin “renewing construction of the border wall.” On this policy, Biden’s obstacle isn’t executive authority exactly. It’s insufficient funding, says Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council. Alas, House Republicans appear unlikely to fund it. How do we know? Because last year, the Republican-controlled House passed a different (much more draconian) immigration bill, known as H.R. 2. This was basically a messaging bill, though lately Johnson has said it’s the only immigration-related legislation his chamber would consider. That bill would require Biden to restart wall construction, as set down in the fiscal 2019 appropriations bill, but it would not give any new funds that would be necessary to build the wall, Reichlin-Melnick says. Similarly, Johnson has demanded that Biden end “catch and release,” which would mean detaining anyone waiting for their asylum claim to be heard in court. But there’s nowhere near enough funding under current law to provide that number of detention beds. Unsurprisingly, H.R. 2 provides zero new money for this objective, either. In other words, the policies that House Republicans claim Biden can adopt “with the stroke of a pen” are outside his pen’s reach — unless Congress passes the bipartisan legislation that these Republicans refuse to consider.
GOP’s Mayorkas impeachment articles come under microscope | BorderReport House Republicans’ novel approach for impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is earning criticism from the left and even the right, who argue the GOP is falling short of the constitutional standards to remove a Cabinet official from their post. Articles set to be marked up by the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday accuse Mayorkas of failing to follow immigration laws — pointing to detention standards that have never been met under any administration, including during the Trump era. They also accuse him of “breach of public trust” — something they say amounts to a “violation of his oath to well and faithfully discharge the duties of his office.” While Republicans say their case rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, Democrats are blistering in their criticism. Others see small and large issues with the case, from its failure to identify a crime to in some cases including incorrect information, such as accusing Mayorkas of terminating agreements with Latin Americans governments that were actually suspended by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Some Republicans also have been pointed in criticizing the House GOP’s approach to the second-ever impeachment of a Cabinet secretary. In a Sunday op-ed, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who served under former President George W. Bush, cautioned: “Don’t Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas.” “They have failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar,” Chertoff wrote. “This is why Republicans aren’t seeking to hold Mr. Mayorkas to the Constitution’s ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for impeachment. They make the unsupported argument that he is derelict in his duty.” Conservative commentator and legal expert Jonathan Turley said Monday: “I just don’t believe that they have a cognizable basis here for impeachment.” Republicans on the Homeland Security panel in response have sent out a compilation of statements from Democrats expressing concern over the border. The bulk of the articles are dedicated to breaking down the immigration laws the GOP says Mayorkas has defied. That includes a focus on language in the Immigration and Nationality Act that says migrants “shall” be detained. But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has never met that standard since the law was first passed in 1996. It’s also an impossible standard to make, since the DHS has neither the bed space nor funding to do so. It is Congress — not the executive branch — that determines how many detention beds to fund. It settled on 34,000 last year, and this year’s appropriations bill bumps the figure to 41,000. “This Administration has removed, returned, or expelled more migrants in three years than the prior Administration did in four years,” the DHS wrote in a memo responding to the articles, a figure that includes a dip in immigration over the course of the pandemic. “A standard requiring 100 percent detention would mean that Congress should have impeached every DHS Secretary since the Department was founded.” Republicans have argued that allowing this type of flouting of the law could create a dangerous precedent. “Congress can enact whatever words it wants. The point is that those words — if they’re going to be rendered meaningless by any executive official, then there’s no point in producing legislation,” said a GOP source close to the impeachment proceedings. “It doesn’t matter if there’s a Republican or a Democrat president. If we allow the precedent to stand that a secretary can unilaterally pick and choose what laws he’s enforcing, then it’s just going to be chaos. Both sides could take advantage of this terrible precedent of this secretary if it’s allowed to stand.” Goldman said such logic creates its own dangerous precedent. “If the Republicans are going to open the door to impeach a secretary because they don’t like how that secretary is doing his job, well, what happens if there’s another child separation policy? What happens if another president pulls out of the Paris climate agreement over the will of Congress? There are a slippery slope of any number of different disagreements that would then rise to the level of impeachment,” he said. Republicans have also faulted Mayorkas for creating programs that allow migrants to be “paroled” into the country even if they might not otherwise meet immigration criteria. The DHS has used the power for Afghans, Ukrainians and migrants from certain Latin American countries. But a report by Democrats attacking the impeachment efforts said Mayorkas was acting well within his authorities to use the power for large groups of people, as had previously been done in response to wars and global instability. “Secretary Mayorkas has complied with the case-by-case adjudication requirement for parole applications. DHS’s parole programs allow designated populations to apply for parole, with each person’s application adjudicated on a case-by-case basis,” Democrats wrote in their report. The articles also misstate some other details. The resolution faults Mayorkas for leaving an agreement made under the Trump administration that would have limited U.S. asylum rights for Guatemalan asylum-seekers, though it was Blinken who terminated the agreement. “When you look at things like an article of impeachment that references an action taken by a completely different Cabinet secretary, or things like satisfying a detention mandate that everyone knows is impossible to meet, I think this indicates some of the factual issues that will come up if there’s ever a trial in the Senate,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council. “It really emphasizes the flaws with a lot of the factual assertions in here. This has always been a rushed process.” Republicans also argue Mayorkas “breached the public trust” by rescinding Trump administration immigration policies, including his effort to build a border wall. But while the articles accuse Mayorkas of terminating contracts for the wall, it does not mention that the secretary resumed construction of the wall in Texas where the Biden administration determined it was required by appropriations law. Sunday’s articles similarly claim Mayorkas has misled Congress — an argument that primarily rests on his response to questions about whether the border is operationally secure. During appearances before Congress, Republicans repeatedly grilled Mayorkas about whether the border was operationally secure under the definition set by the Secure Fence Act. That law creates a standard of perfection that has never been met, defining the status as one in which not a single person or piece of contraband improperly crosses the border. Mayorkas has said one must view the law with a “layer of reasonableness,” saying he sees the law as requiring the secretary to maximize the resources they have to make the border as secure as possible, asserting to lawmakers he believes he is complying with the law. “I do. And congressman, I think the secretary of Homeland Security would have said the same thing in 2020 and 2019,” Mayorkas said in a 2022 exchange. The articles also accuse Mayorkas of giving misleading comments about the vetting of Afghanistan evacuees and migrants apprehensions, without identifying the comments directly. “They have failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar necessary for impeachment,” Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), another member of the committee, said Monday. “They know that that’s the truth. We know it’s the truth. Tomorrow, we’re going to make sure that the American people know it’s the truth.”
At first they denied there was a border crisis, it was Maga propaganda they said.... Wokies fought strong and hard assuring everyone the border was not open, that it was insane to even think that the border was open......... Now Biden says he will close the border in exchange for some $$$$...... Can't make this $hit up.... Just do your job and protect this country, I don't get how these crooked politicians get into office and do whatever the *ck they want with no consequence. You were elected by the people to serve this country not to be king and have the people serve you in whatever cause you want. Need money? go ask Zelenskyy for some... Just close the fing border and admit you were wrong. Trump was right in 2016 and Trump is right again...
I was wrong above. Trump did invoke 212f in 2018. The Court shut him down. That's why he couldn't invoke it again in 2019 when he claimed a national security crisis at the Southern Border. And why he stated Congress must act. Biden attempted a similar thing (to deny asylum for those who entered between ports of entry), and he was also shut down by the Court. Link Link Beyond OT 2018’s immigration merits cases, the court brought President Donald Trump up short on his policies relating to immigration and nationality in two notable instances. First, in Trump v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, over the objection of Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s motion to stay a district-court order enjoining the president’s proclamation under 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) that would have barred entry (and denied asylum) to anyone who entered via the U.S.-Mexico border other than through ports of entry.
I wouldn't say he lied, but he's playing full-throttle politics, and in doing so, he rushed through this impeachment with some basic incorrect facts. The whole border crisis is politically hot, and it seems like Trump and the Republicans believe this is their #1 go-to issue for the 2024 presidential election. The problem here is Trump's hand is involved, and it will hurt him as much as it will hurt congressional Republicans for rejecting a bipartisan bill to help resolve the border. The backfire will eventually come, and there is still plenty of time until Nov. So, politically speaking, the Republicans' timing is off. By the time Nov rolls around, I think this won't be as hot as it is today. If it still is, everyone will be blamed, not just Democrats.
