Rep. Goldman: My Republican colleagues are wasting the Senate’s time

SHOW this "math". Or were you saying that trying to beat the right with FACTS was a waste of time?

The crime RATE by illegal aliens is lower
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-immigrant-crime-rate-not-higher/72788637007/
https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-i...ate-setting-record-straight-illegal-immigrant

Cato, June 4: If native-born Americans were incarcerated at the same rate as illegal immigrants, about 930,000 fewer natives would be incarcerated. Conversely, if natives were incarcerated at the same rate as legal immigrants, about 1.5 million fewer natives would be in adult correctional facilities.​

The Cato Institute is a right wing think tank, BTW.

Now, it's your turn... What's that you were saying about "math"?

 

Righties have NEVER had a solution to border control.

First, they hire illegals in droves at sub minimum wage with no insurance.
Second, they carve out little exemptions for voter blocks that vote Republican: case in point , the Cuban "wet foot, dry foot" exception.
Third, the have not idea how to reform the ancient quota system for immigration visas so they just use the excues " we won't even talk about immigration quotas until the border is secures" and then refuse to define what "secure" means.

 

It's a robust comprehensive bill, and your comment is no where near comprehensive enough to have any merit, whatsoever.

Fail.

 

That's not correct. Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes, per capita.

 

The right's complaint is they don't like how he runs his department.

That's not a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.

 

The funding for the NGOs causing the problem in the first place should get the bill killed by itself. The rest of the bill is a comprehensive disaster.Note the 5000 a day number is only at the presidents discretion and since Biden has none we already know how that's going to work out. It'll just be a political thing where dems will shut it down the week before the election and open it right back up the day after.

 

Rep. Goldman: My Republican colleagues are wasting the Senate’s time.

At least that is positive. The less Congress does the better.

 

Democrats wasted the senate's time twice, impeaching Trump when they knew the senate would not remove Trump from office.

 

This is the bill we are talking about, right?

https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/MCC24166.pdf

You're going to tell me the 'bill is a disaster' and if you think I'm going to take your word for it, you'll have to do better than anemic criticism; you'll need to provide a comprehensive analysis (or something in that direction better than what you are providing thus far) for me to come anywhere near the ballpark of accepting your opinion, because the bill is led by, and negotiated by, Sen. Lankford, a republican and the bill addresses many important things needed for border security to even remotely have a chance.

Regarding your 'critique', which is more in the bellyache dept than analysis dept, I'll say this.

Your concerns about the funding for NGOs, the discretionary powers of the presidency, and the overall integrity of the bill need to be addressed with a careful analysis of the actual provisions within the bill itself. You fail to do this.

As I read the bill, I'm not seeing that the bill does provides blanket funding to NGOs at all. Instead, it imposes strict conditions on the allocation of funds, ensuring that only those NGOs that comply with U.S. laws and do not encourage or facilitate illegal activities receive funding. This is a measure intended to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and do not contribute to unlawful behavior. Thus, the funding mechanism is designed to support lawful and constructive engagement by NGOs with migration issues [Pages 145].

Presidential Discretion and the "5000 a day" Number: Regarding the presidential discretion to affect daily immigration numbers, the bill does not detail such a number explicitly. Presidential discretion in this context typically pertains to broader policy directives or emergency provisions that are carefully structured within the framework of the law. You need to distinguish between such legal discretions and the arbitrary use of power you are concerned about. Furthermore, if there are specific concerns about misuse of discretion, these are usually addressed through legislative oversight and checks and balances embedded within the U.S. political system [Pages 141-142].

I asked copilot about the '5000 a day' number, which I hear being tossed around by the right alot:

Overall Integrity of the Bill: Describing the entire bill as a "comprehensive disaster" is cheap cavalierly tossed lacking-of-depth nonsense, as it overlooks specific provisions that carefully regulate the funding and operational aspects of migration and border control. The bill includes multiple safeguards, detailed planning, and coordination among federal agencies to address complex issues such as refugee resettlement, special immigrant visa applications, and the coordination of federal efforts to manage migration effectively and humanely [Pages 195-196].

So, while it's a good idea to scrutinize the government's actions and legislation critically, no one is suggesting otherwise, however, such critiques should be grounded in the specific legal text and operational frameworks outlined in the legislation (which you utterly fail to do, so how can we take you seriously? You appear to be merely regurgitating right wing talking points, eh?).

The bill's provisions provide structured and regulated approaches to handling the issues at hand. You really need to engage with these details to form a balanced understanding of the bill's potential impact and the safeguards it establishes, otherwise, you're just some dude on the internet bellyaching about the border and what's the point of debating you, if that's the best you can do? Maybe you're just not that into it, and are content with being but another bellyacher, in a litany of bellyachers, eh?

What's really sad is that I've put the question to the forum before, 'what's your solution', and all too often I'll get a reply on the order of 'just secure the border'. That kind of reply (and similar criticisms of Lankford's bill) reveals a naivete about the depth and complexity of the problem, and lacks awareness about the multifaceted reality of the situation.

So, garyd, are you up to the task, or are you content with your cavalier comments, the kind I can find by any random bar patron in any city or town in the US?

 

Well, I suppose the real question now is; What, exactly, is "securing" the border.
If you want to mean that absolutely no one gets past the border patrol agents, then you are quite correct; we do not have secure borders.

If you mean, given the sheer size of the problem to secure over 8,000 miles of land border, then just about any of the presidents before Biden got the job done. And we can see this just by looking at the number of apprehensions and expulsions for prior years;

We also can compare the Trump and Biden administration border encounter numbers for some insight;

You will recall that Biden promised to undo trumps border control program because it "was the right thing to do" and immediately, border encounters increased dramatically.
The word went out; America's borders are open, get in while the getting is good.

And it's a trend that has NEVER been seen in these numbers before;



But of course, the bigger question is; how many ILLEGAL MIGRANTS have managed to clear the border and are now in the country ILLEGALLY?
We don't know. But the best modeling, based on border encounters, according to Border Patrol modeling and the sheer number of ILLEGAL MIGRANTS being moved around the country, is that at present there are over 25 MILLION ILLEGAL MIGRANTS in the country today, and 11 MILLION of them have been here less than a decade.

So who has secured the border before?
Trump and Obama seem to have managed pretty well.

 

Just for grins, I'll outline my solution to resolve the ILLEGAL MIGRANT problem;

1) Appllications for immigration/asylum are processed ONLY at our overseas offices. Anyone attempting to claim asylum or apply for immigration in the US will be denied out of hand, and deported.

The idea is simple; requiring desperate people to make a thousands of mile long trek to our border is inhumane and encourages human trafficking. Let people apply near their homes.​

2) Remove the incentive to come to America ILLEGALLY by putting real teeth into e verify and making it mandatory for every job.

If one can't find work when they get here most of the motivation for coming here ILLEGALLY goes away. Severely punishing employers who knowingly hire ILLEGAL MIGRANTS and deporting and banning ILLEGAL MIGRANTS found working or applying for work removes the motivation to come here ILLEGALLY in the first place.​

3) Half of the ILLEGAL MIGRANTS now in the country came here on a VISA and never left. Bond Visas.

Bonding means if a visitor doesn't leave when their VISA expires, someone is going to pay a serious penalty. The bond provider loses their bond, and a bounty hunter is going to track down the miscreant and deliver them to ICE.​

4) Once we have the border secure we need to address the 20 MILLION plus people now in the country ILLEGALLY.

It is neither practical or desirable to simply say we'll deport them. If someone was brought here by their parents when they were a kid, and they've integrated well, haven't been in trouble, they should be able to pay a fine and become citizens. We can sort out the "desirables" from the "undesirables", offer citizenship to the former and deport the latter.​

 

When you can't win on the merits try to baffle them with BS, you told me I was wrong then you turned around and demonstrated that the difference between what I said and what the bill said regarding 5k people a day was entirely nil.

 

So, the bill follows the classic LW problem solving algorithm: money, more money, lather, rinse, repeat. Why am I not surprised?

 

Republicans have this misguided idea that it's about 'numbers'. It's not, not really.

As YouTuber Brian Tyler Cohen says, 'Honestly, who needs Democrats cutting ads when you got Republicans who say stuff like this?

Quoting Rep Chip Roy (R-Texas)

"Another member of Congress, resigned today.
So, now I'll be told, 'Chip, now we'll have a one seat majority,
or two seat majority, and I don't even know what it is, anymore.

Let me ask you a question, 'Does it matter?'.

In 2018, we had the House, we had the Senate and we had the Whitehouse,
and we had a bigger majority than we have today, and we utterly failed to secure the border, totally dropped the ball, didn't do it."

https://youtube.com/shorts/Q9leEZ3WSs4

So, the point is, quit bellyaching about securing the border, because if you repubs couldn't get it done when you had both houses and the presidency, you have no leg to stand on complaining about Biden.

Oh,. yeah,. numbers. Well let's talk about that. Trump's numbers were due to cruel and inhumane policies that resulted in few thousand kids, DELIBERATELY losing contact with their parents and to this day, they having reconnected.

Heck, if I wanted to really go cruel and inhumane, why not just shoot everyone that crosses, and viola, stat is zero.

Of course, that's Reductio Ad Absurdum, but I'm doing to prove a point, stats resulting from cruel and inhumane policies are not valid stats because they were achieved immorally, just as money earned illegally is not legitimate money. You can't brag about how much money you earned if you earned it by counterfeiting it.

So you can't brag about getting border stats low if your policies were...

1. Family Separation: As part of a “zero-tolerance” policy, families were forcibly separated at the border for only a misdemeanor (first time crossing is a misdemeanor). Children were taken away from their parents, many permanently separated, leading to immense trauma and distress12.
2. Weaponizing Legal Status: Immigrants’ legal status was used as a political tool. Their vulnerability was exploited for political gain1.
3. Visa Pulling: Visas were revoked without proper explanation or justification, causing uncertainty and hardship for affected individuals1.
4. Targeting Good Samaritans: The administration zeroed in on individuals providing humanitarian aid to migrants, creating a chilling effect on compassionate assistance1.
5. Hiring Ruthless Nativists: Trump’s primary policy architect had a nativist stance, which influenced harsh immigration measures1.
6. Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico): In January 2019, the Trump administration implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their US immigration hearings. This policy created a population boom in migrant camps on the Mexican side of the border. Human rights organizations documented hundreds of kidnappings, rapes, and assaults of migrants who were waiting in the sprawling camps for their asylum hearings13. The reinstatement of this policy by the Biden administration has drawn criticism from human rights groups, who consider it inhumane42.

Thank you, Copilot, I couldn't have stated it better, myself.

Also, title 42 allowed Trump to get better stats, but that was due to the pandemic, and when the pandemic ended, title 42 ended, as well.

Now, repubs are okay with these cruel and inhumane polices, but Dems are not, and don't give me any crap about 'secure border', when your side couldn't get it done when you had both houses and the presidency. A repub led Senate Bill was offered, to address many of the problems, but Speaker Johnson, kowtowing to Trump's orders, refused to put it to the floor for a vote, and it would have passed. See, Trump doesn't want the border problem solved, he just wants to make it a campaign issue, and that's putting party above country.

https://reason.com/2021/01/20/trumps-immigration-policy-was-brutal-and-inhumane-will-biden-fix-it/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ration-family-separation-immigrants-joe-biden

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...-trump-s-remain-mexico-policy-border-n1281580

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/22/trump-v-biden-us-mexico-border-policies-analysis

The long and short of it is that it is a resource problem. Applying the law is what the folks at the border are doing, just ask anyone down there. We need the right amount of migrants to aid in the labor shortage, we need to streamline the process, and Lankford's border bill does a lot to solve the problem. "securing the border' is a meaningless phrase'.

Repubs don't want the border problem solved, they already rejected the Senate Border Bill. They just want to bellyache about it and make it a campaign issue. Johnson is a Trump sycophant. Schumer explained why HR2 wouldn't fly, but note that the senate border bill was led by Lankford and Sinema, a repub and an independent, hardly bastions of flaming liberalism. Johnson should put the Lankford/Sinema bill to the floor, and let the back and forth on the bill commence, and then we'd have a strong bill to address the problem. Even Trump said that it's congress's job: (looks like he forget he said it, given his recent killing the repub senate bill)

It should start at @3:48 , it not, go there.

 

Most intelligence experts are very concerned about the number of known terrorists caught and even more concerned about the number that got away.

 

That's a meaningless statement.

So, you have no rebuttal.

You acknowledgement of defeat accepted.

 

Ho Ho Ho as the guy in the red suit with the big black, You not only have failed to effectively counter anything I've said, you've proven it correct and you think you've won? Now that's funny I always thought one must be a bit detached from reality to vote democrat, Thank you for the confirmation.

 

Congratulations on your WW Club membership!

How can it be LW when it's sponsored by Lankford and Sinema?

The problem IS resources, as explained in my rebuttal so your premise is moot.

 

Well, kudos for putting something more robust than most who are criticizing the Biden administration.

But, let's take a deeper dive on your proposal for addressing border and immigration issues includes several components, each with its own potential impacts and challenges (Courtesy of Copilot):

1. Processing Applications Overseas: This proposal aims to process all immigration and asylum applications at overseas offices. This could potentially reduce dangerous journeys and human trafficking by allowing individuals to apply from their home countries or regions. However, this approach might also face significant challenges:
   
   • Access and Equity: Not all potential immigrants or asylum seekers may have easy access to these overseas offices. This could disadvantage individuals from more remote or impoverished areas.
   • Capacity and Efficiency: The feasibility of scaling up facilities and staff to handle the potential influx of applications in overseas offices is a critical concern. Delays and backlogs could worsen, leading to extended wait times and potential humanitarian concerns.
2. Mandatory E-Verify and Employer Sanctions: The idea here is to deter illegal immigration by removing the job opportunities that often attract migrants. Making E-Verify mandatory and imposing severe penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants could decrease the incentive to immigrate illegally. However, there are downsides to this approach:
   
   • Economic Impact: Industries that heavily rely on immigrant labor might face labor shortages, which could lead to higher operational costs and potentially increased prices for consumers.
   • Enforcement Challenges: Ensuring compliance and the effective enforcement of these policies could be costly and complex.
3. Bond Visas: This proposal introduces a financial penalty system where a bond is forfeited if a visitor overstays their visa, with bounty hunters employed to enforce departures. This could potentially reduce visa overstays but also raises several concerns:
   
   • Ethical and Legal Implications: The use of bounty hunters to enforce immigration laws could lead to serious ethical and human rights issues, including potential violations of due process.
   • Effectiveness and Cost: The financial burden of bonding might deter genuine tourists and business visitors. Additionally, the logistics and cost of tracking overstayers could be substantial.
4. Addressing the Status of Current Illegal Migrants: The proposal recognizes the impracticality of deporting all undocumented immigrants, suggesting a system to sort individuals into "desirables" and "undesirables." This approach has several problematic aspects:
   
   • Ethical Concerns: Categorizing individuals in such a manner can be highly subjective and discriminatory, potentially leading to unjust outcomes.
   • Implementation Difficulties: Determining criteria for who is considered "desirable" or "undesirable" could be contentious and difficult to implement fairly.

Overall, while this proposal aims to address various aspects of immigration and border security, it raises significant ethical, practical, and humanitarian concerns. Each component would require careful consideration of the potential impacts and the development of robust, fair mechanisms for implementation to avoid exacerbating current challenges or creating new ones.

Thank you, Copilot, I couldn't have expressed it better.

 

Vacuous nonsense. You comment doesn't rise above 'you're wrong and I'm right', and comments of that piss poor caliber have no merit whatsoever.

Apparently you can't read. I provided a robust, in depth, rebuttal.

Read it again. I'll repeat #34, for your edification, and please read it, as you comment clearly indicates you have no idea what you are talking about:

*********************************
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/rep-goldman-my-republican-colleagues-are-wasting-the-senate’s-time.618155/page-2#post-1074760074

This is the bill we are talking about, right?

https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/MCC24166.pdf

You're going to tell me the 'bill is a disaster' and if you think I'm going to take your word for it, you'll have to do better than anemic criticism; you'll need to provide a comprehensive analysis (or something in that direction better than what you are providing thus far) for me to come anywhere near the ballpark of accepting your opinion, because the bill is led by, and negotiated by, Sen. Lankford, a republican and the bill addresses many important things needed for border security to even remotely have a chance.

Regarding your 'critique', which is more in the bellyache dept than analysis dept, I'll say this.

Your concerns about the funding for NGOs, the discretionary powers of the presidency, and the overall integrity of the bill need to be addressed with a careful analysis of the actual provisions within the bill itself. You fail to do this.

As I read the bill, I'm not seeing that the bill does provides blanket funding to NGOs at all. Instead, it imposes strict conditions on the allocation of funds, ensuring that only those NGOs that comply with U.S. laws and do not encourage or facilitate illegal activities receive funding. This is a measure intended to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and do not contribute to unlawful behavior. Thus, the funding mechanism is designed to support lawful and constructive engagement by NGOs with migration issues [Pages 145].

Presidential Discretion and the "5000 a day" Number: Regarding the presidential discretion to affect daily immigration numbers, the bill does not detail such a number explicitly. Presidential discretion in this context typically pertains to broader policy directives or emergency provisions that are carefully structured within the framework of the law. You need to distinguish between such legal discretions and the arbitrary use of power you are concerned about. Furthermore, if there are specific concerns about misuse of discretion, these are usually addressed through legislative oversight and checks and balances embedded within the U.S. political system [Pages 141-142].

I asked copilot about the '5000 a day' number, which I hear being tossed around by the right alot:

Overall Integrity of the Bill: Describing the entire bill as a "comprehensive disaster" is cheap cavalierly tossed lacking-of-depth nonsense, as it overlooks specific provisions that carefully regulate the funding and operational aspects of migration and border control. The bill includes multiple safeguards, detailed planning, and coordination among federal agencies to address complex issues such as refugee resettlement, special immigrant visa applications, and the coordination of federal efforts to manage migration effectively and humanely [Pages 195-196].

So, while it's a good idea to scrutinize the government's actions and legislation critically, no one is suggesting otherwise, however, such critiques should be grounded in the specific legal text and operational frameworks outlined in the legislation (which you utterly fail to do, so how can we take you seriously? You appear to be merely regurgitating right wing talking points, eh?).

The bill's provisions provide structured and regulated approaches to handling the issues at hand. You really need to engage with these details to form a balanced understanding of the bill's potential impact and the safeguards it establishes, otherwise, you're just some dude on the internet bellyaching about the border and what's the point of debating you, if that's the best you can do? Maybe you're just not that into it, and are content with being but another bellyacher, in a litany of bellyachers, eh?

What's really sad is that I've put the question to the forum before, 'what's your solution', and all too often I'll get a reply on the order of 'just secure the border'. That kind of reply (and similar criticisms of Lankford's bill) reveals a naivete about the depth and complexity of the problem, and lacks awareness about the multifaceted reality of the situation.

So, garyd, are you up to the task, or are you content with your cavalier comments, the kind I can find by any random bar patron in any city or town in the US?
****************************************

Apparently not.

 

Uh what part of 5k a day for a week was lost on you? And thats 35k a week you're shuckin' and jivin' duckin' and divin' and it is still at the presidents discretion. that's more in two weeks than Trump had in his last month. Calling it a comprehensive disaster is deadly accurate. It does nothing to actually slow the flow. Pays NGO's to keep them coming. Hire a few more immigration judges but not enough to matter. Hires a few more guards to baby sit unaccompanied minors who will still be kept in Obama's cages because we have no where else to put them. And still not enough to make a difference.

 

Ask them.I don't answer for Lankford or Sinema

. Uh yeah, money is a resource.

 

Writ large, you haven't read the post, particularly this line:

...critiques should be grounded in the specific legal text and operational frameworks outlined in the legislation (which you utterly fail to do, so how can we take you seriously? You appear to be merely regurgitating right wing talking points...)

Clearly, you can't be taken seriously.

 

That's not a substantive argument.

 

It damn sure is.
You're entitled to an opinion. Why don't you throw a little AI at it.